Structuring the argument of a theoretical paper A guideline and its reception by advanced undergraduate musicologists Richard Parncutt and Margit Painsi.

Structuring the argument of a theoretical paper

A guideline and its reception by advanced undergraduate musicologists

Richard Parncutt and Margit PainsiDepartment of Musicology, University of Graz, Austria

ICMPC Bologna 2006

Session: Music psychology pedagogy

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

Pedagogical approaches

• Teach “facts”– Beginning students?

• Teach arguments – Advanced students?

Our aims

• Guide to writing a theoretical paper– suitable for team projects– independent of discipline – produces good results

• Users: – advanced undergraduate students– researchers

Kinds of argument and evidence

• Sciences– empirical, data-oriented

• Humanities– philosophical, intersubjective

• Musical practice– practical experience

External models

• Academic democracy– consensus among experts– peer-review procedure

• International research processes– conferences, journals

“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

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

Local context

• Seminare versus Vorlesungen

• Structure of “Seminare”

• Student background

Seminare versus Vorlesungen

– Seminare: active• talks• write-up• discussion

– Vorlesungen (lectures): passive• assignments• tests• exam

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– write-up

Background of our students

• Humanities– historical musicology– ethnomusicology

• Sciences– music acoustics– music psychology– music sociology

• Musical practice– performance– theory, composition

Academic teamwork

• What is it?• Why train it?• Forming student teams• Roles of team members• Teamwork tips• Feedback

Academic teamwork

• Interdisciplinary synergy– different knowledge and abilities

• Increasingly common– communication technology – expansion of literature

Why train teamwork?

• Practical reason– no time for individual presentations in seminar

• Research implications– a difficult, important, general research skill– academic conflict management

Forming student teams

• Choose partners– trust – standard

• Maximize disciplinary diversity– split students with similar, unusual skills

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

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

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

Planning the presentation

Planning documents• Tabular argument • Reference list• Draft of powerpoint file• Self-evaluation

Structure of talk and write-up

• Introduction– holistic, contextualised

• Main part– analytic, detailed– divided into subtopics

• Conclusion– holistic, contextualised

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

Structure of the argument

Main question

Ist subtopic 2nd subtopic 3rd subtopic

Main thesis

1st subthesis 2nd subthesis 3rd subthesis

Introduction:

Conclusion:

Examples: Performance research

Question Thesis 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

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!

BackgroundOverview 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

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

SubthesisSpeaker’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”

Structure of the conclusion

Main question As 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

ExampleNew 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

Conclusion of this paper

• Thesis

• Application

• Reception

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.

Application

• Any academic discipline with– difficult questions – uncertain answers

• Any students who should– think independently and clearly

Student reception

• Development period 2003-05– mixed reactions– evaluations contributed to development

• Complete package 2006– general acceptance

Please steal!

• Get info from proceedings

• Tell me what happened