My approach to teaching
Richard Parncutt, revised May 2017

University students are confronted with a range of teaching styles. Every university teacher has her or his own style, based on their personality, their beliefs about the role and function of university teaching, and their beliefs about how best to teach students or (better) to guide them on a path toward better understanding of their discipline and emerging academic independence. But teachers seldom explain their pedagogical approach to their students. The reason is often lack of time: our courses are already full of course content, and our curricula seldom cover everything that we would like to include. This page is an attempt to solve that problem. I have tried to identify some things about university teaching that I personally consider most important. These are things that I am constantly trying to implement in different ways. Of course I do not always achieve what I intend, and my opinions about the following topics have sometimes changed, so I am not always consistent. I invite students to help me improve and optimize my teaching by giving me constructive feedback during evaluation procedures. I would also welcome feedback on the content of this page.

Reliable content. Let me begin with the most important point. Students expect to be told the truth by their teachers. But what is the truth? Strictly speaking, there is no truth, because humans are generally fallible. The closest we can get to truth in academic research is a global consensus of experts. When leading international experts on a given question agree that something is likely to be true, we might as well accept it as being true, because we have no better criterion. The way this happens in practice in the academic world is called peer review. A researcher submits an article to a journal. The journal then contacts international experts in the same specific area - if possible, on the same specific question. If those experts agree that the article is ok, it is published. They usually also insist on specific revisions before publication. The result is the closest to "truth" that is available. Surprisingly, there is an ongoing discussion in universities about the pros and cons of peer review, as if another, better form of quality control were possible. But from a purely logical viewpoint, there is no alternative. Logically, only one kind of person is in a position to evaluate a specialist text, and that is a recognized expert in the same specific area; and you can only expect such a person to give an honest opinion if s/he is allowed to do so anonymously. So why is there so much resistance to peer review? Academics do not like it when their work is rejected, of course. But if they are honest, they have no choice but to accept the advice of the reviewers and try again. Authors of letters to the editor in the Kronenzeitung may be suspicious of the peer-reviewed literature because its authors are mainly foreigners. Perhaps that also explains some of the resistance, even in academic circles. Another criterion for "truth content" is citation frequency: if people think a particular piece of work is good, they are more likely to cite it (they may also cite it because it is bad, but that happens less often).1 My teaching is based on the content of good peer-reviewed publications (mainly by other people, but also by my own publications). My courses are not based on ideas that I just dreamed up, nor do I test out my research ideas on my students. I do not present ideas that contradict the global consensus in my discipline (like climate deniers contradicting the global consensus of climate science), nor do I expect non-experts (including my students) to be able to evaluate the content of my courses, although we of course constantly develop this skill. Students are not guinea pigs: researchers should test their ideas at international conferences and in good journals before presenting them to students. Classrooms are not fan clubs: researchers who are having trouble getting their work published in good journals should accept the negative feedback of international experts and leave the material out of their teaching (this is what I understand by the German term forschungsgeleitete Lehre). 

Clear argumentation. As university students, you should not believe what your teachers tell you, just because they have a university position. As a rule you can believe them if they are citing good literature, their arguments make sense, and the available evidence supports their arguments. As far as possible, my teaching is based on clearly formulated theses, and arguments and evidence for and against each thesis. Critical thinking is probably the most important skill you will learn at university level, and it is also a focus of my teaching. I offer specific methods and strategies to help you improve your skills in this area. If you are considering an academic career, this training will help you to survive peer-review procedures in the future. For this reason I like it when students criticize my research or teaching, provided of course that their criticism is well founded. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does it can be an important learning experience for me. Try it!

Clear use of language. What is the difference between academic discourse and everyday language? Some people think the difference lies in the use of impressive sounding terms that outsiders don't understand. It follows that if you want to sound academic you need to use big words and long, fancy sentences. That is sometimes true, because sometimes new terms need to be introduced in order to understand a particular question, and sometimes you cannot say exactly what you need to say in a short sentence. But surprisingly often we find academics using complicated-sounding terms and flowery formulations that have no clear academic function. Instead, their function seems to be to impress non-experts, including students. As a result, everyone gets confused. If you ask for answers to important questions, you first get a lot of important sounding bla bla. If you try for a while to work out what all that bla bla means, you eventually find there is no clear answer. For this reason, it is important to use clear, direct language in academic discourse. In my classes and my research, I favor everyday language and avoid jargon as far as possible. I use terms that are widely accepted or can be clearly defined, either top-down as in a dictionary, or bottom-up through common usage. I avoid terminology that is intended to sound impressive or to confuse. I don't try to disguise my insecurity by dressing my ideas up in fancy language. I use jargon only if it is accepted in the peer-reviewed literature and offers clear benefits.

German-English bilingualism. Both German and English are major world languages with long histories and large numbers of speakers. Both languages are constantly changing as the meanings of terms shift and new terms are introduced. I believe that every kind of research that is going on at every university in the world can be expressed perfectly well in either language. It follows that both languages and both research cultures are fundamentally equal in value. Beyond that, there is a big difference. The English language has a much larger academic readership - perhaps ten times that of German. That has important consequences for the quality of academic work, because for any given academic text that has been submitted to a journal for publication, the number of possible peer reviewers is generally much larger for an English text than a German text. Today, most researchers in most disciplines in most countries in the world can read and write English fluently, but few can read and write German fluently; I am talking about countries like China, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa, as well as all of Europe and North America. For these reasons every student at every university in the world who is seriously considering and academic career needs to be fluent in English - if only so that people will take her public comments seriously when she puts up her hand after a talk at an international conference. What this means for students here in Graz is that you need to be bilingual. You need to be able to talk and write fluently about your discipline in both languages. This is true regardless of what career you are heading for, whether it be in research or outside, in music or outside, in psychology or outside, and so on. I believe in the ability of every student to be perfectly bilingual, and in the importance of bilingualism for future research careers. In my teaching, I give practical expert support in the development of academic language skills. That includes maintaining German as a language of academic discourse, and avoiding academic Denglisch.

Interdisciplinarity. In my research and teaching, humanities and sciences have equal status, even though my primary expertise is in the sciences. Similarly, all musicological subdisciplines have equal status, although I am primarily a music psychologist. I don't pretend that sciences are superior to humanities, just because I am a scientist (although surprisingly many scientists do that). I don't pretend that systematic musicology or music psychology is more important than other musicological subdisciplines. Such delusions of grandeur are unfortunately quite common in academia, and they can be serious impediments to interdisciplinary research. Instead, I apply strategies for constructive collaboration between humanities scholars and scientists that I have developed for the conference series CIM and the journal JIMS. I strive for constructive, collegial collaboration with leading international representatives of other (sub-) disciplines and you can find their names in my publications file.

Collegiality. In my teaching and research, I criticize ideas - not people. To explain what I mean by that, let's start with student grades (marks, Noten). Grades should be based only on your academic performance according to stated criteria. They should not depend on your personality, appearance, or behavior. That's why if I am grading written papers, I ask you to write your matriculation number on each page and not your name. I just read the content. I have a lot of practice with keeping content separate from the people who write it, as a peer reviewer for leading international journals and conferences. As a reviewer, I am careful to criticize ideas, not people. As an editor monitoring the work of other reviewers, I try to ensure that they criticize ideas, not people. The international discipline of music psychology is strong in this form of collegiality, which I think explains why so many of our leading researchers are women, by comparison to other disciplines. Another place where we should be careful to criticize ideas and not people is in teaching. In my courses, I avoid ad hominem arguments, and instead focus on content. By "content", I mean interesting academic questions and tangible, well-supported evidence and arguments.

Personal support. If you are thinking of a career as a researcher, I can help. There are many steps on the path toward academic independence, and I can help you at every stage. I am always happy to give you detailed feedback on your academic work, if you ask for it. (Tip: if you are looking for a good way to impress me, try this!) In my teaching, I help you to identify good research for yourself, based on peer review and citation frequency, and use it to develop your own original ideas. Later, I can support you when writing abstract submissions for conferences, and even reviews or articles for journals, because I often review such submissions. I have the experience to help you prepare a good conference talk or poster. I will help you apply for financial support, if such support is available. I have many good international contacts that I can use to promote your international academic career.

Humor. Life is not always serious. Humor is an important part of teaching and learning. That is why I even made some jokes in this document. They are intended to keep you on your toes. Playfulness is an important part of learning (just watch children learning - they are the experts). It is possible to make a joke out of just about anything, provided it does not offend or hurt other people - while at the same time maintaining the highest academic standards.

Academic expertise 
The English adjective "academic" sometimes means wissenschaftlich (which generally sounds positive) and sometimes akademisch (which can sound negative, depending on context). I usually use it in the positive sense of wissenschaftlich. Please keep this in mind when reading the following text.

In my teaching, I aim to create an environment in which my students can acquire academic expertise, which includes interrelated skills such as:
•	evaluation of the quality of research reports (article, chapter, book)
•	application of research findings in new situations, such as one's own research project
•	active participation in international research communities

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:
•	presenting convincing arguments in support of original claims or theses
•	developing English language skills (if English is not your first language)
•	responding constructively to suggestions and criticism, and offering constructive suggestions and criticism to others

...and, on that basis, presenting original research at international conferences and submitting contributions to international journals.

Speaking of expertise, 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 textbooks 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 ancient Greece, Pythagoras thought that music, mathematics and astronomy were fundamentally linked with each other - a mystical approach that dominated medieval music theory, but was gradually abandoned as modern scientific thinking emerged (scientific revolution). 
•	Since we are still unsure what the ultimate origin and function of music might be, most of the published research on this issue - even the most recent - will presumably turn out to be incorrect.
•	One of the most frequently cited works in music psychology is the music-theoretical edifice of Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1983). Inspired by Chomsky's cognitive linguistics, it assumes an innate or universal basis for many of the "rules" of (Western!) musical "grammar". From the viewpoint of mainstream ethnomusicology, that is not only unlikely to be true - it is also clearly ethnocentric.
•	The widely held claim that music makes you more intelligent ("Mozart effect") is true only in very limited ways. All such empirical findings are susceptible to misinterpretation, for example by mere exaggeration or by the transfer of domain-specific findings to other domains.

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 feel 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 classes, we are 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. Articles in peer-reviewed journals are the main sources, but international conferences are also very useful. I immerse myself for a few days in the latest ideas, arguments and empirical data of my international colleagues, and present my own work 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. When I learn from published articles, it is sometimes because I reviewed them before publication. Finally I also learn from the writing and presentations of my students because they direct me to new sources of information.

Because I collect information from diverse sources, and because I enjoy the mutual respect of many 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.

We have a very good collection of current and older books in the general area of systematic musicology 
in the centre library (secretary's office). All students are invited to visit and browse during secretarial opening hours. It is very important for students to read the latest books because they often explain basic things better than journal articles. In recent years, several new reference works 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. These books are full of interesting materials, but there are also large differences in content and organisation, which reflect music psychology's current state of development and flux. Currently, the number of interesting questions in music psychology is far greater than the number of clear answers; 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 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 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 have a duty to offer my students appropriate opportunities for learning and good materials for study. I also have a duty 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, for example by studying the journals in which they published their articles (peer-reviewed? impact? language?) or the publishers who published their books, and then considering the citation frequency of their research (just look in Google Scholar, or download the software package Publish or perish and check out statistics like the h-index and the g-index).

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. You can do that by finding out how much of their research is published in good international peer-reviewed journals and how often their research is cited. That is an indirect way of finding out what their international colleagues think of their work. If you are seriously considering an academic career, it is important to study with someone who has good international peer-reviewed publications and frequently cited publications, otherwise your career will probably mysteriously grind to a halt as soon as you start competing with international students for fellowships and research positions. Don't fall into this trap!

Footnote
1. In the 19th Century, the Habilitation was an important instrument for promoting academic quality. But things have changed, and today the Habilitation may be more of an impediment. A Habilitation thesis is not comparable with a peer-reviewed or frequently cited publication, because examiners of Habilitationsschriften are not comparable with peer reviewers of journal articles. First, they are not anonymous; their names are available to the members of the Habilitation committee, and usually the Habilitation candidate also finds out. For this reason, they may not feel free to give an honest negative opinion. Second, if the Habilitationsschrift is in German, that severely limits the choice of examiners. A further problem is that the members of a Habilitation committee usually do not have the expertise to make a judgment. They are chosen from colleagues at a single university, whereas the editorial and advisory boards of leading international journals are selected from the best experts in the world. No wonder the Habilitation is not taken seriously outside of countries that still maintain this quaint tradition. In fact, as a rule it is completely ignored. Within those countries, colleagues who really care about academic quality have been arguing for decades that it is time to abandon the Habilitation. The last nail in its coffin is its effect on the careers of young academics: they spend years in a highly productive stage of their academic life writing a book that almost no-one will read, instead of writing contributions to the best international journals. That could be one reason why universities that maintain the Habilitation tradition tend to perform poorly in international university rankings.