Transcript Structuring the argument of a theoretical paper

Session: Music psychology pedagogy
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
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
Introduction:
Main question
Ist subtopic
Conclusion:
1st subthesis
2nd subtopic
3rd subtopic
Main thesis
2nd subthesis
3rd subthesis
Examples: Performance research
Question
Thesis
Subtopics
What promotes a
child’s musical
development?
people
closest to the
child
 parents
 teachers
 peers
cognitive
factors
 preparation
 trait anxiety
 situation
 learned thought patterns
 self-efficacy
pattern
recognition
 text versus music
 memory
 eye movements
 creativity
What does
performance anxiety
depend on?
What is the
psychological basis of
sight-reading?
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
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”
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
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
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