My approach to teaching
Richard Parncutt, October 2009


The path is the goal: Expertise versus knowledge

The main aim of my teaching is to establish an environment in which my students can acquire academic expertise, which includes interrelated skills such as:

For those considering an academic career (via masters and PhD to a research/teaching post), active participation in international research communities is the most important point. It includes:
 ...and, on that basis, presenting original research at international conferences and submitting contributions to international journals.

Many students believe (or take for granted) that academic knowledge is more important than academic skills. At a more philosophical level, they take for granted that absolute knowledge exists. That belief may be reasonable in large, established disciplines in which there is a large amount of "knowledge" to be learned (just think of all those big thick text books called "Introduction to Psychology"). Systematic musicology seems to be different in that regard. The history of systematic musicology is full of claims that later turned out to be incorrect. Here are a few of the better-known examples:
 In general, the literature in systematic musicology tends to involve theses for which cogent and convincing arguments may be presented on both sides (for and against). The main problem from the students' viewpoint is not necessarily to learn the theses (which of course is also necessary) but to learn how to deal with their uncertainty and to evaluate and compare the various arguments.

Students in my classes sometimes complain that I am inconsistent. On one occasion I claim one idea to be true, and - just as they are trying to understand that - I claim that something else is true, which seems to contradict the first idea. There is a simple explanation for this apparently odd behavior. In my research, I am constantly dealing with "uncertain truths" and the arguments for and against them. The probability that a particular claim will be considered to be true by an international community of researchers tends to depend on the exact details of the claim (including the very words used to make it), who is making the claim, in what context the claim is being made and so on. So if you present the same material to me in different formulations or contexts, or even just with a different underlying intention, I will respond differently. I am not primarily interested in the answer, but in the process by which we arrive at the answer. Der Weg ist das Ziel! Welcome to research-oriented teaching!

Students may be surprised to learn that the material for my courses rarely comes from books. My primarily source of information is the international conferences that I attend. These conferences are my main learning experiences. I immerse myself for a few days in the latest ideas, arguments and empirical data of my international colleague, and present my ideas to them. A lot of information is exchanged at such conferences, often in the form of constructive criticism in which all involved parties actively engage and from which all parties are constantly learning (at least in the sense of expanding their academic horizons). Conferences help me to create the courses that I teach, by (re-) constructing my (our) evolving ideas. Other sources of information are articles submitted for publication in peer review journals (when I am asked to review them) and the writing and presentations of my students (because I naturally don't have time to read all their source materials). Of course I also read published journal articles, especially when they are relevant to my own research and I cite them in my articles.

Because I collect information from diverse sources, and because I enjoy the respect of my international colleagues in music psychology and systematic musicology, I can safely claim that the content of my teaching represents the state of the art in music psychology research. That is why those materials are full of uncertainties. Seen that way, a certain (optimal?) amount of uncertainty can be regarded as an indicator of academic quality. If I were to pretend that current "knowledge" is more certain than it really is, that would not only reduce the academic quality of my courses - it would also be dishonest. And if there is one thing that all students will agree on, it is the importance of honesty and authenticity in communications with their lecturers and professors.

I have nothing against books, and in spite of the above comments I often refer to them. In recent years several new books have appeared in both German and English that attempt to cover the ever-growing and changing discipline of music psychology. These books have made it easier for students of all persuasions to study music psychology. I wish I had time not only to read these books thoroughly, but also to write my own general introductory book about music psychology or (better, because there is more need) systematic musicology. Of course these books are full of interesting materials, but their large differences in content and organisation reflect the state of flux in which the discipline of music psychology finds itself. At the moment, the number of interesting questions in music psychology is far greater than the number of clear answers, and the same certainly applies for the whole of systematic musicology. That's why I place so much focus in my teaching on the evaluation and construction of information, and less on learning "facts". I am equipping you for an academic career.

A final point that I would like to stress is that the academic skills upon which I focus in my teaching are not confined to music psychology or even to academe, but are transferable to other academic disciplines and non-academic domains. Employers are often interested in the ability of their employees to think clearly, understand and evaluate complex documents, communicate ideas to others with similar or different backgrounds, create new ideas and approaches, evaluate those creations, put ideas into practice, speak and understand different languages - and in all of these cases to be able to work both independently and in a group. All these are skills that I hope students will acquire in my courses. And all of them are more important than acquiring "knowledge" (whatever that is exactly) about systematic musicology (or any other discipline).


Democracy versus authority

I am a fan of the idea of universal human rights, according to which everyone is fundamentally equal regardless of education, skills, gender, age and so on (please read the of the United Nations). In a teaching and learning context, we have equal fundamental rights, but we have different obligations depending on our skills and official roles. I am expected to offer my students appropriate opportunities for learning and good materials for study. I am also expected to evaluate students' work reasonably and fairly. Because of my skills and experience, I am in a good position to carry out these tasks. Beyond that, I do not consider myself to be in any way superior (or indeed inferior) to other people, including my students. That means, for example, that I always welcome feedback from students about the content and quality of my teaching (so for example I always welcome emails or conversations about this or other such documents). And as an English speaker, and especially as an Australian, I am uncomfortable with the distinction between formal and informal address in the German language (Sie versus du) and would prefer to be informal with everyone. It would help me in my communication with students if they understood and accepted these biases in my thinking. Please give up the old idea of the professor as someone who deserves special respect. Everyone deserves respect, and the respect that I expect from you is, or should be, the same as the respect that you expect from me. In my opinion, an atmosphere of mutual respect, that transcends differences in rank, is the best basis for working creatively together. And creativity is a hallmark both of good research and good teaching.


Student motivation

Why do students study? And why might students be interested in this page? These questions are hard to answer because students have such diverse interests. I guess that students study for two main reasons: 

1. They are passionately interested in the subject material.
2. They want a qualification that will help them get a good job. 

These are both good reasons to study at university. But they are quite different. Moreover, neither reason is sufficient by itself. Option 1 alone is impractical unless you have rich and generous friends or relatives. Option 2 alone is impractical because study at university level is hardly possible without intrinsic motivation. So students tend to study for a combination of these two reasons. What it the relative importance of 1 and 2 for you? 

Students who favor reason 1 are interested in the CVs of academics because they tell them about the quality of the material that they are studying. If you are passionately interested in your subject material, you will want the best available study materials and approaches to academic training. You will also want to be internationally competitive. Conversely, if your lecturer or professor does not have a good academic track record, you may find yourself studying questionable or outdated materials, wasting valuable time, and even sabotaging your future academic career. And even if you are unsure whether you would like to be an academic, or whether you would like to be internationally mobile, it is generally a good idea to keep your options open. So it's a good idea to evaluate the academic record of your professors. Find out more here.

Students who tend toward reason no. 2 generally have difficulty maintaining the motivation that is necessary to complete a university degree course. They try to compensate for their lack of intrinsic motivation by different forms of extrinsic motivation: not only the promise of a good job (which of course is always a risky proposition, and in any case you have to wait a long time for it) but also more immediate rewards such as whether an academic has an interesting and entertaining teaching style, whether it is clear in advance what has to be learned and done, whether the material is easy to learn and reproduce in an examination, whether the lecture or professor is approachable and helpful, whether s/he marks students' work fairly or generously, and so on. All these things are important and desirable attributes of any lecturer of professor - but I would argue that they are not the main thing. The main thing is the quality of the ideas and materials that students are expected to study, because they are the ultimate reason for being at university - or for the university's very existence. So again: it's a good idea to evaluate the academic record of your professors. Find out more here.

Richard Parncutt, Centre for Systematic Musicology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Graz