[Humanist] 26.257 events: narrative; literary studies; demotic history of science

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Tue Aug 28 07:33:20 CEST 2012


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 257.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Mark Finlayson <markaf at MIT.EDU>                           (83)
        Subject: CMN'13: Computational Models of Narrative

  [2]   From:    Nathalie Richard <Nathalie.Richard at UNIV-LEMANS.FR>        (99)
        Subject: Call for paper - History of Science from Below

  [3]   From:    Ryan Cordell <r.cordell at neu.edu>                          (52)
        Subject: NEMLA CFP: The Literary Interventions of the Digital
                Humanities,A Pecha Kucha Roundtable


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:34:22 -0400
        From: Mark Finlayson <markaf at MIT.EDU>
        Subject: CMN'13: Computational Models of Narrative


2013 Workshop on
Computational Models of Narrative
***********************************
August 4-6, 2013
Hamburg, Germany
***********************************
http://narrative.csail.mit.edu/ws13
***********************************
a Satellite Event of:
the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
Berlin, Germany
***********************************

First Announcement
==================
Paper submission deadline: February 24, 2013

Workshop Aims
-------------
Narratives are ubiquitous in human experience. We use them to communicate,
convince, explain, and entertain. As far as we know, every society in the
world has narratives, which suggests they are rooted in our psychology and
serve an important cognitive function. It is becoming increasingly clear
that, to truly understand and explain human intelligence, beliefs, and
behaviors, we will have to understand why and to what extent narrative is
universal and explain (or explain away) the function it serves. The aim of
this workshop series is to address key questions that advance our
understanding of narrative and our ability to model it computationally.

Special Focus: Cognitive Science
--------------------------------
This workshop will be an appropriate venue for papers addressing fundamental
topics and questions regarding narrative.The workshop will be held as a
satellite event of the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
(to be held in Berlin 31st July - 3rd August), and so will have a special
focus on the cognitive science of narrative. Papers should be relevant to
issues fundamental to the computational modeling and scientific
understanding of narrative; we especially welcome papers relevant to the
cognitive, linguistic, or philosophical aspects of narrative. Cognitive
psychological or neuroscientific experimental work which may provide
insights critical to computational modeling is appropriate for this
workshop, and is encouraged. Discussing technological applications or
motivations is not prohibited, but is not required. We accept both finished
research and more tentative exploratory work.

Illustrative Topics and Questions
---------------------------------
* What cognitive competencies underlie narrative, and how may they be
studied?
* Can narrative be subsumed by current models of higher-level cognition, or
does it require new approaches?
* How do narratives mediate our cognitive experiences, or affect our
cognitive
abilities?
* How are narratives indexed and retrieved?Is there a universal scheme for
encoding episodic information?
* What comprises the set of possible narrative arcs? Is there such a
set? How
many possible story lines are there?
* Is narrative structure universal, or are there systematic differences in
narratives from different cultures?
* What makes narrative different from a list of events or facts? What is
special that makes something a narrative?
* What are the details of the relationship between narrative and common
sense?
* What shared resources are required for the computational study of
narrative?
* What should a "Story Bank" contain?
* What shared resources are available, or how can already-extant
resources be
adapted to the study of narrative?
* What impact do the purpose, function, and genre of a narrative have on its
form and content?
* What are appropriate formal or computational representations for
narrative?
* How should we evaluate computational and formal models of narrative?

Organizing Committee
--------------------
* Mark A. Finlayson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
* Benedikt Löwe, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and
Universität Hamburg, Germany
* Bernhard Fisseni, Universität Duisburg-Essen and Universität Hamburg,
Germany
* Jan Christoph Meister, Universität Hamburg, Germany

Questions should be directed to:
narrative-ws13 at csail.mit.edu




--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:57:39 +0200
        From: Nathalie Richard <Nathalie.Richard at UNIV-LEMANS.FR>
        Subject: Call for paper - History of Science from Below


Call for Paper - History of science from below

Université du Maine, Le Mans, France – June 5-7, 2013

“History from below” emerged in Britain around 1960 as a new  
historiographic project. It intended to substitute the history of  
practices and of forms of popular resistance for the more traditional  
history of institutions and great men, and therefore to confer a new  
legitimacy on the former. One important outcome of this new historical  
standpoint has been to take into consideration forms of knowledge and  
behaviours formally disregarded as marginal or irrational. Focusing on  
“modest” or “lay” agents, and reconsidering their role in history,  
this historical trend has greatly contributed to the renovation of  
social and political history.

History of science, notably history of medicine, did not remain  
uninfluenced by these new historical perspectives. In 1985, Roy Porter  
advocated a departure from a monolithic history of discoveries and  
medical glories neglecting popular practices as part of the cure.  
Olivier Faure has since showed how crucial were the patient’s point of  
view and initiative. New research grounded on new sources, such as  
private or first person writings and letters kept in the archives of  
physicians (for example the Swiss Samuel Tissot), has highlighted the  
patient’s viewpoint and have contributed to revising the classical  
history of medicine “from below.” Now studied from multiple angles,  
the process of a linear and univocal, solely professional and  
academic, medicalization is rendered more complex, and the autonomous  
strategic aptitude of lay actors is reappraised.

In the history of experimental sciences, the practical skill and  
knowledge of craftsmen – “the knowledge from the hand”, according to  
Robert Halleux in 2009 – generate practices which can be considered as  
forms of trial, even as forms of experiment. During the eighteenth,  
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, botany and zoology evolved by  
taking into account this practical knowledge of gardeners, breeders,  
amateurs and collectors. Learned societies, botanical gardens, rose  
gardens and orchards were meeting points where scientists and  
non-scientists alike would observe plants and try to explain and  
master plant growth and heredity. Observations made by amateurs have  
often been collected and used by academic scientists in theoretical  
debates over evolution.

Nowadays, the nature and the extent of “scientific cultures” among the  
general public is an important political and social issue. It is an  
issue in the growing role played by associations of patients or  
relatives in the field of medicine. It is also an issue in the “public  
consultations” which are regularly held on technical and scientific  
policy. Therefore it seems promising to extend the perspectives of  
“history from below” to all human and natural sciences, and to emulate  
discussions on its methodological and theoretical implications. Such  
is the aim of this conference.

Papers should focus on the  eighteenth – twentieth centuries,  
corresponding to the period of emergence of the human and natural  
sciences in their modern institutional form. Papers dealing with  
contemporary subjects will be accepted as long as they include some  
historical perspectives.

The following topics could be favoured:

-        Outsiders from the main academic institutions (general  
practitioners, technical staff, artisans, amateurs, etc.), and  
practises at the margins.
-        Mediators, and modes of dissemination of scientific knowledge  
(associations, networks, general and popular press, dictionaries and  
cyclopaedias, publishers, etc.)
-        History of experimental “subjects” and the public as actors  
of science, and not solely as material or audience of scientific  
discourses coming from “above”
-        Appropriations of science (adaptation, resistance, etc.)

The aim of this conference is also to stimulate exchanges on  
methodological issues, such as:

-        Sources. What kind of sources can be used to write a history  
“from below” (oral sources, private letters, first person writings,  
etc.)?
-        What should be the limits of the history of science “from  
below?” Which categories of actors, which groups, which forms of  
knowledge should be included, or excluded? And how to take them into  
account? General practitioners are an interesting example. How and  
when did they cease to be part of the history of medicine “from  
above?” And how to write their history “from below?”
-        What should be the right scale for the history of such actors  
and practices? One could for example question the relationship between  
the history of science “from below” and microhistory.

Collective discussion on methodological issues is still scarce  
regarding history of science “from below.” It should therefore be  
central to this conference.

How to submit a paper?

Abstracts (300/500 words), with formulation of methodological issues,  
and a short bio-bibliographical notice (100 words), should be sent to  
the organizing committee before September 30, 2012. Results of the  
selection process will be announced by November 2012.

Conference languages: French and English (translation will not be  
provided during the conference).

Conference venue:
Université du Maine, Le Mans, France (Le Mans, France,  
http://www.univ-lemans.fr)

This conference is sponsored by the Centre de Recherches Historiques  
de l’Ouest (CERHIO, CNRS UMR 6258, http://www.univ-rennes2.fr/cerhio)

Organizing committee and contacts:
Cristiana OGHINA-PAVIE (CERHIO, Université d’Angers)  
cristiana.oghinapavie at gmail.com
Hervé GUILLEMAIN (CERHIO, Université du Maine) guiherv at club-internet.fr
Nathalie RICHARD (CERHIO, Université du Maine) Nathalie.Richard at univ-lemans.fr

Nathalie Richard
Professeur d'histoire contemporaine, Modern History Professor
Université du Maine, Le Mans, France



--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:30:23 -0400
        From: Ryan Cordell <r.cordell at neu.edu>
        Subject: NEMLA CFP: The Literary Interventions of the Digital Humanities,A Pecha Kucha Roundtable


Dear Humanist Colleagues:

I write to remind literary scholars on this list of the following CFP 
for the 2013 NEMLA conference. The deadline of September 30 nears. The 
CFP is also listed here: http://nemla.org/convention/2013/cfp_american.html. 
Please note: the session has already been accepted to the conference, so 
accepted papers will be included in the program.

Best,
Ryan Cordell

The Literary Interventions of the Digital Humanities: A Pecha Kucha 
Roundtable

     Digital humanists often tout their work as transformative to 
literary scholarship. Textual encoding, text mining, corpora analysis, 
and geospatial analysis all promise to shift our understanding of 
literary texts, historical periods, and cultural phenomena. Digital 
Humanities (DH) is certainly, as Stephen Ramsay recently quipped, the 
"hot thing." DH panels multiplied at the 2009, 2011, and 2012 MLA 
Conventions, and they received significant coverage in The Chronicle of 
Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed each year. More English 
Departments are hiring digital humanists; digital humanities centers 
multiply across a range of institutions.

     Nevertheless, DH scholarship has not significantly influenced the 
vast body of literary scholarship. Few "traditional" scholars cite 
digital work as evidence for their claims; few DH articles appear in 
prominent literary journals. There's little conversation between the 
many DH panels at MLA and the many, many panels entirely unaffected by 
the digital humanities revolution. DH self-consciously fosters a 
"big-tent" philosophy of inclusion, but scholars outside of the big tent 
often see DH, rightly or wrongly, as a separate entity: a roped-off area 
even within disciplinary conferences like MLA.

     This roundtable aims to encourage dialogue between camps. The 
Digital Americanist Society seeks speakers who will---through the 
abbreviated, energetic Pecha Kucha presentation style---articulate a 
clear, interpretive intervention that digital scholarship has made (or 
could make) in their areas of study. Our goal will not be to describe 
the features, interface, or technologies of digital projects, but 
instead to demonstrate how those projects advance, supplement, or 
disrupt the scholarly conversations of our respective literary 
subfields. To that end, we encourage "non-DH" scholars whose work has 
benefited from DH scholarship to contribute; we welcome a diverse panel 
that exemplifies the dialogue we hope to champion.

     This roundtable will employ the dynamic Pecha Kucha presentation 
style. Panelists will each present using 20 slides that auto-advance 
every 20 seconds. Each talk, then, will last for 6 minutes and 40 
seconds. The organizers will communicate extensively with accepted 
panelists before the conference to familiarize them with the Pecha Kucha 
format. We hope to organize a roundtable of 5-6 speakers, which means 
the formal presentations will take less than 45 minutes. This plan will 
leave ample time for conversation among the panelists, the moderator, 
and the audience.

Submit abstracts to Ryan Cordell, Northeastern University, 
r.cordell at neu.edu, by September 30, 2012.





More information about the Humanist mailing list