Empirical Musicology Review v4 n2 Commentaries

Abstract

In her paper “Crossing Boundaries”, Judith Becker raises and discusses important points about where various boundaries between different ways of studying music might lie, how we negotiate those boundaries, and some of the frustrations that ensue in trying to get boundary-crossing work published. This response considers the increasingly heterogeneous nature of musicology itself; some possible overlaps, discontinuities and confusions between the terms ‘psychological’, ‘empirical’ and ‘scientific’; and the different institutional expectations and reviewing styles that often apply to work in the humanities and the sciences. There is no doubt that these differences can cause problems, conflicts, and misunderstandings; but my response ends by recognising the vigorous health of current interdisciplinary research in music, and the opportunities for carrying out and disseminating ‘boundary-crossing’ research that now present themselves, of which this journal – Empirical Musicology Review – is one.

Abstract

Judith Becker’s contribution highlights the timely issue of interdisciplinary interaction between ethnomusicology and music psychology, with its attendant opportunities and difficulties. My response aims to first of all place this issue in the historical context of disciplinary development and differentiation. As for the present-day situation, I argue that for interdisciplinary engagement to be productive, bridges need to be built between pockets of interest on both sides of the disciplinary divide. The difficulties faced by Becker do not in my view suggest that there is no appetite on the psychology side of the divide for interdisciplinary exchange, although they do highlight some of the barriers to such communication.

Abstract

Having a paper accepted for publication is challenging, even under the best of circumstances, as when reporting an incremental finding in a field that is one’s home discipline. The process becomes considerably more difficult when venturing into foreign disciplines in which methodological conventions and assumptions may differ from those one is familiar with. Provocative topics may further exacerbate the reticence of reviewers and editors to welcome cross-disciplinary research to a journal’s pages. Here, a pair of papers, one of which describes a study of possible physiological correlates of music- induced trance states, and the other which describes the challenging journey to get the research performed and published, provide a case study for examining whether epistemological divides can be bridged in the face of editorial obstinacy.

Abstract

In attempting to understand the difficulties raised by Judith Becker’s experiences with crossing boundaries between disciplines, the author is prompted to examine how he successfully negotiated the intellectual journey from psychology to musicology in the course of his academic career. Apart from taking advantage of unique opportunities offered, and fortuitous developments in the field of music cognition, he attributes his success to having doctoral degrees in both psychology and musicology, the second the result of being awarded a Social Science Research Council Conversion Fellowship in 1975 specifically intended to train natural scientists to become social scientists. Thanks are offered to the SSRC committee that took the decision to establish this training scheme.