1. Structuring the argument of a theoretical paper A guideline and its reception by advanced undergraduate musicologists Richard Parncutt and Margit Painsi Department of Musicology, University of Graz, Austria ICMPC Bologna 2006 Session: Music psychology pedagogy

2. Unanswered questions 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 and integration of immigrant minorities

3. Pedagogical approaches Teach “facts” –Beginning students? Teach arguments –Advanced students?

4. Our aims Guide to writing a theoretical paper –suitable for team projects –independent of discipline –produces good results Users: –advanced undergraduate students –researchers

5. Kinds of argument and evidence Sciences –empirical, data-oriented Humanities –philosophical, intersubjective Musical practice –practical experience

6. External models Academic democracy –consensus among experts –peer-review procedure International research processes –conferences, journals

7. “Truth”: Hermeneutic approach Process-orientation –no clear beginning or end –any draft of a paper can be improved Repeated interaction –theses (top-down) and evidence (bottom-up) –participants  consensus

8. Formal structure Learn to follow instructions –cf. journal guidelines, APA Publication Manual –cf. grant applications Practice creating an argument –exact wording of theses, logical progression –active creation of own argument as a basis for the passive critical evaluation of the arguments of others Formalism is temporary –abilities become intuitive

9. Local context Seminare versus Vorlesungen Structure of “Seminare” Student background

10. Seminare versus Vorlesungen –Seminare: active talks write-up discussion –Vorlesungen (lectures): passive assignments tests exam

11. Structure of our Seminare First session –introduction to topics and subtopics –students form groups and choose topics Next few weeks –planning documents –feedback Until end of semester –one team presentation per week Vacation period –wri te-up

12. Background of our students Humanities –historical musicology –ethnomusicology Sciences –music acoustics –music psychology –music sociology Musical practice –performance –theory, composition

13. Academic teamwork What is it? Why train it? Forming student teams Roles of team members Teamwork tips Feedback

14. Academic teamwork Interdisciplinary synergy –different knowledge and abilities Increasingly common –communication technology –expansion of literature

15. Why train teamwork? Practical reason –no time for individual presentations in seminar Research implications –a difficult, important, general research skill –academic conflict management

16. Forming student teams Choose partners –trust –standard Maximize disciplinary diversity –split students with similar, unusual skills

17. Roles of team members Content –introduction, a subtopic or conclusion Coordination –searching for literature on a given topic –compiling contributions from others –proofreading a draft, giving comments

18. Teamwork tips Common responsibility –share responsibility for the whole –plan to contribute more than “fair share” –address common problems Clear agreements –plan meetings, be on time –assign flexible roles to group members –tolerate / discuss unreliability Mutual support –give and receive constructive criticism –share literature sources –keep all members informed

19. The whole Seminar as a team: Feedback after the presentation Aim: a foretaste of –conference question period –journal peer review Documentation –append feedback sheets to write-up –cover letter with main suggestions how responded

20. Planning the presentation Planning documents Tabular argument Reference list Draft of powerpoint file Self-evaluation

21. Structure of talk and write-up Introduction –holistic, contextualised Main part –analytic, detailed –divided into subtopics Conclusion –holistic, contextualised

22. Functions of structural elements Introduction: prepare audience –motivate –general (background)  particular (examples) –explain approach Main part: present detail Conclusion: present main thesis –express and explain –place in broad context –consider implications

23. Structure of the argument Main question Ist subtopic 2nd subtopic 3rd subtopic Main thesis 1st subthesis 2nd subthesis 3rd subthesis Introduction: Conclusion:

24. Examples: Performance research QuestionThesis Subtopics What promotes a child’s musical development? people closest to the child  parents  teachers  peers What does performance anxiety depend on? cognitive factors  preparation  trait anxiety  situation  learned thought patterns  self-efficacy What is the psychological basis of sight-reading? pattern recognition  text versus music  memory  eye movements  creativity

25. Structure of the introduction Main topic  explanation  definitions Directly addresses course theme  What do you mean by the topic?  How you use specific technical terms throughout? Example  explanation A specific person, situation or anecdote; illustrates and introduces the main question; links theory to reality  Embed it in the argument! Background Overview of specific, relevant, accepted knowledge in relevant disciplines; no individual studies Main question  relevance  possible theses Corresponds to the main topic  Why is this question important and interesting?  Several plausible answers to the question Approach Division of topic into subtopics, with explanation

26. Structure of each subtopic Subtopic  explanation  definitions  including link to main question  confined to this subtopic Subquestion  possible answers  plausible answers to subquestion Detail Relevant material from cited literature Subthesis Speaker’s preferred answer to the subquestion; supports the main thesis (not yet stated) Evidence* Summary of empirical, theoretical and logical evidence supporting the subthesis Counter-evidence* and limitations* undermine the subthesis or support other possible subtheses; weaker than “evidence”

27. Structure of the conclusion Main questionAs in introduction Main thesis  common to all subtheses  original, going beyond cited sources Evidence*  supports main thesis as a whole  avoids detail that could be in subtopics Counter-evidence* and limitations* Commonalities of the counterevidence und limitations of the subtheses Example New explanation of the introductory example involving the new thesis Implications*What if thesis is true? Specific consequences Suggestions* Specific ideas for further research related to the main question and thesis

28. Conclusion of this paper Thesis Application Reception

29. Our thesis Advanced undergraduate students benefit from a formal approach to theoretical writing… …in which they practise creating and assembling the individual building blocks of a convincing argument.

30. Application Any academic discipline with –difficult questions –uncertain answers Any students who should –think independently and clearly

31. Student reception Development period 2003-05 –mixed reactions –evaluations contributed to development Complete package 2006 –general acceptance

32. Please steal! Get info from proceedings Tell me what happened