Honors Thesis Colloquium 2009-10

Hi Larry, I have gone back to your earlier comments section to discover the important one you made and that I missed, so for these remarks on your proposal draft, I will combine some of that material as well, since it has bearing on the proposal.

You also asked me a good question in an email–one that applies to everyone in the class–so I will address that first. You wrote the following perceptive set of questions: “But I think one of the problems that we were addressing in class is what type of evidence I would be looking for: musical, historical, theoretical? Another problem I had trouble with but I believe I am starting to get is what exactly is research methods. I thought it was something that was already established for each field but I am not sure. It seems to also be something we invent. Is it the developed plan we create get our data displayed in a way that proves our thesis? Or are there prescribed methods?”

There are certain prescriptions in regard to methods of research. Each field has a defined object of study: literature or history or music or soil, etc. What one looks for in regard to that object is also part of a discipline–that is, you become disciplined to look for certain qualities of stability or change in that object, or how it functions in a context (whether it is muscle structure in the context of bodies or music in the context of a culture). Fields often get combine–as in social psychology–because researchers find one approach too narrow.

So, what I am asking each of you to do is, first of all, to state your field of study (or your combined fields if you are using an interdisciplinary approach). Many in the class have not yet done that and it is a necessary step in getting focused. That is one reason, Larry, that you have moved back and forth between claims in your own proposal. On the one hand, you are looking at musical lyrics (music). On the other hand, you are looking at the impact of those lyrics in a culture (sociology). On the third hand you don’t have, you are looking at questions of identity in relation to the music (social psychology). And on top of all that, you are looking at 2 cultures to make a comparison/contrast analysis (cross-cultural sociology and maybe some anthropology). This may be is why you feel confused about method!

Further, there are real issues to be addressed about whether you are looking at the Chinese lyrics in translation or whether you read Chinese. That certainly complicates the question about what is understood within the Chinese culture. So, a proposal helps you see whether you have bitten off more than you can or even want to chew.

In the case of your proposal, you have also indicated your intended testing out of some of the theories and findings of Simon Frith, who is a sociologist who examines popular music for mass culture. You will need to steep yourself in more of his work in order to grasp what his method is–and whether it is the one you will employ. And that would also mean reading analyses by others of his work–to see why they approve or disagree with it. Where, more specifically, do Scott and Rose come in, in regard to Frith’s arguments?

So my advice at this point is to come to terms with your object of study and which method you will likely use. Then you will know what will count as evidence within that focus. Clarify why you have chosen China as your focus for the lyrics and address the question above on translation. And think about how you would gauge impact of these lyrics on Chinese youth. How does Frith make his case for this in his cultural analysis and would it be a useful way for you to approach it? Would you have to be in China to do so or could you use writings about Chinese youth culture? If you can’t really do that, I think what you mean to study is the lyrics themselves–what they say, what aesthetic they follow, what their ideological meaning is.

I hope this helps, but let me know if I need to clarify more. Above all, this is not to discourage you! It is to help you focus on a doable topic. Best, Lee