Post-doc at the university of Heidelberg

(I am sorry for posting two posts of restricted interest one after the other, but post-doc positions are comparatively rare and the deadline of this one is so close I felt I could not wait further to post it. I received the announcement via Indology.info from Birgit Kellner)

University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg
Application Deadline: 10.07.2013

The Cluster of Excellence "Asia and Europe in a Global Context," in cooperation with the "Heidelberg Graduate School for Mathematical and Computational Methods in the Sciences", invites applications for the position of a Junior Research Group Leader in Digital Humanities (full-time post-doctoral position; German academic salary scale TVL-13).

The successful candidate is a scholar in any field of the humanities or relevant to the University's Field of Focus 3 "Cultural Dynamics in Globalized Worlds". The candidate should investigate new research questions in his/her field with a transcultural perspective, and with the support of computational methods. He/She should be familiar with relevant technologies and computational approaches. He/She has successfully worked in interdisciplinary projects spanning across faculties and different research units.

The successful candidate also operates as a node in an expanding digital humanities network in Heidelberg University and takes an active role in concerted efforts to secure the sustainability of digital humanities in a future Heidelberg Center for Digital Humanities. Possible approaches include, but are not limited to: text mining and text annotation, analysis of images and iconic representations, semantic modeling of digitized sources in 2D or 3D, structures and/or dynamics of spatio-temporal models.

The Junior Research Group Leader will become a member of both the Cluster "Asia and Europe in a Global Context" and the "Heidelberg Graduate School for Mathematical and Computational Methods in the Sciences". Both institutions offer the successful applicant a well-established and highly dynamic research environment. The Junior Research Group will consist of a post-doctoral scholar and up to two doctoral students. Candidates are expected to further develop and expand this structure through their own funding applications.

Applicants are expected to hold a doctoral degree and to have an excellent publication and research record. Good knowledge of German and English is required. The position is offered for three years.
To apply, please submit a CV, a publication list and two references to Ina Chebbi, M.A., Cluster of Excellence "Asia and Europe", Karl Jaspers Centre, Building 4400, Room 111, Voßstraße 2, 69115 Heidelberg.

Your application and all documents are preferably submitted online as one single PDF file
to chebbi@asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de. The deadline for the application is July 10th, 2013. The job interviews will take place on July 18th, 2013. Please understand that received applications can not be returned.

Please note that the University of Heidelberg is an equal opportunity employer and places particular emphasis on recruiting female scholars. Disabled applicants with equivalent qualifications will be given preference.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homepage: http://www.asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de/en/about-us/jobs/detail/m/junior-research-group-leader-in-digital-humanities.html

PhD Position at Heidelberg University

Source: http://windyskies.blogspot.co.at

Until now, I have only posted announcements concerning positions in projects held by colleagues but, since not every one is a member of the Indology mailing list and the like, I thought that I will start posting announcements regarding all positions I come to know of (perhaps with the exception of completely unplausible ones).

The subproject “Changing Sacred Waterscapes: Religious and Scientific Knowledge Systems in Varanasi” of the Cluster of Excellence “Asia and Europe in a Global Context” offers one doctoral scholarship (3 years) within the interdisciplinary research group “Waterscapes in Transcultural Perspectives” (Research Area C, MC 9.2).
Within the framework of the research group we will look at discourses linked to changes of the waterscape of the north-Indian city Varanasi. Research will be carried out based on textual and cartographic sources as well as field work. One focus will be case studies situated in the 19th (James Prinsep) and 21st century. We will look at the waterscape of Varanasi in the context of an environmental history where technological, scientific and religious knowledge systems interact.

The successful applicants’ primary task will be to complete a PhD degree, but active participation in relevant graduate courses offered at the Cluster of Excellence or other institutes at Heidelberg University is recommended. The stipends are rated at €1200/month and last for 3 years. Access to travel and publication funding is available.
Candidates must hold an M.A. or equivalent in a relevant discipline of Indology, South Asian Studies and/or experience in ethnographical fieldwork methods in Asia/Asian contexts. Proficiency in English is mandatory as well as knowledge of one Asian language (Hindi / Sanskrit). An interest in interdisciplinary collaboration is essential.

To apply, send curriculum vitae, academic transcripts, an outline of a dissertation project (2-3 pages) related to the research group, names and contact details of two referees, and one written sample via email to apl. Prof. Dr. Jörg Gengnagel (joerg.gengnagel@urz.uni-heidelberg.de).

Stipend start should be in 2013, review of applications will continue until the position is filled.

Heidelberg University is an equal opportunity/affirmative-action employer. In case of equality of qualification and suitability of applicants, the applications made by female researchers will be given preferential consideration. We also encourage and welcome applications from disabled persons.

For additional information see:
http://www.asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de/en/research/interdisciplinary-research-groups/mc9-waterscapes/mc92-changing-sacred-waterscapes.html

Crowd-funding Indological (and/or) Philosophical projects?

A few months ago, two valiant scholars I know (Mark Singleton and James Mallinson) proposed a project for crowdfunding on Kickstarter.com. They got the 50k dollars they applied for (in fact, they received even more than that) and are now happily funded for 1 or 2 years. I did participate to the crowd-funding and I do not regret it. A few days ago, another colleague (Michael Slouber) applied for crowd-funding, again on Kickstarter.com (his project is here). This time the amount of money he needs is much less and he is quite frank in explaining that he needs a few more months to complete his book, otherwise he will not be able to land in a TT job. I hesitated a bit, but then decided to help him (after all, I have now a job, but have been unemployed in the past, and will probably be unemployed again in the future). (Update: In fact, I had decided to support the project, but then failed to do it as it was too late, sorry Michael, in case you are reading.)

HOWEVER, I am not sure whether this is the right path, especially insofar as it might be an escape from the responsibility of convincing your peers within the Academia of the importance of your project (I am thinking especially of projects which may sound appealing but are not well-grounded). Apart from the anti-nihilist argument raised here by Eric Schliesser (i.e., if you are a nihilist, you have far less chances to be funded than an applied ethicist, no matter who is a better scholar), here are some thoughts by Steven Lindquist (Associate Professor in the US), expressed in a the Indology mailing list —which is visible to the public— (emphasis added by me):

Not only does crowdsourcing of academic work create its own "popularity" system for producing scholarship (traditional grant routes do this as well in supporting particular academic trends, but the key difference in my mind is that there is a formal, learned vetting system, even if it is not ideal). My larger concern relates to the privatization of funding for research, especially for individuals and for specialized works. Crowdsourcing of academic work gives an all-too-easy excuse for grant-giving and governmental bodies to disconnect from the funding of individual scholarship altogether. It does the same for the publishing industry, where they can require or increase already-required subventions. Arguably, these groups are already doing this in different fashions, especially under current austerity measures and the economic debacle many countries are in, but this sort of crowdsourcing could make their argument radically easy if it were to become at all popular in academic circles. Who can't envision members of government, when considering funding priorities, stepping back altogether and saying, "If it has any public appeal, the public will fund it" and use crowdsourcing as a justification to cut funding completely? Or a publisher doing the same in requiring a subvention? Crowdsourcing scholarship would certainly be appealing to certain university higher admin types who could easily justify eliminating internal funding altogether—especially for the humanities, where "practical value" and larger fund-raising potential are hard arguments to make.
While I am not a fan of slippery-slope type arguments, I wonder if we are hurting ourselves in the long run if we circumvent the standard grant vetting based on an academic market for a different sort of market-driven popularity. Perhaps certain types of work are more appropriate for crowdsourcing, I don't know. And, of course, I admit there is still the vetting that takes place with the publisher, though that industry is in flux. But are we going to see many more of these sorts of appeals? A future onslaught across list serves? Or to think it out further: are people going to increasingly turn to colleagues to fund any project they don't get a grant for or don't self-finance? How about requests to fund unfunded dissertation projects? Or to fund [insert name here]?

 What do you think? I am especially worried at the idea that one starts avoiding tough research and recurring instead to appealing videos to get funded. On the other hand, I myself have often repeated that we have to become responsible for the results we want to be achieved, and cannot any longer count on state-funding.

Thus, it seems that the dilemma, in my case at least, is not about crowd-funding or not, but rather about which projects should one crowd-fund. For instance, I am ready to finance one's project about actions aiming at saving small seals in northern Canada from being killed because of their furs, a project for which the Canadian government will surely not give any money (given that it probably earns out of the fur industry). By contrast, I am not ready to finance one's vacations on the Canarian Islands. More in general: I am ready to finance what the governments do not deem right to finance (for whatever reason) but is intrinsically altruistic and valuable, whereas I am not ready to finance projects which mainly regard one's own interests. If you need a break because you are close to a burn-out, I see your problem, but will not finance you (unless you are a close relative of friend).

Did you ever participate in a crowd-funding? Why (not)?

For a post in favour of crowd-funding, see here. On different platforms, don't miss this post (and its comments) and this article (I got the link through one of the commentators to the previous post).
 
(small note: I am writing this post on Tuesday the 22nd of May, but I will only post it on June the 28th, that is, after the crowd-funding of Michael Slouber is completed, since I want to avoid even the very remote possibility that one should not fund Michael's project after having read my post).

You thought no one could still say that there is an "Asian Philosophy" stressing order over single individuals?

Consider the following statements:

This paper analyzed different texts from the Buddhist, Daoist, and Hindu religions. […] It is clear, from the reading of all the texts that each religion tries to explain the human soul’s relationship to the cosmic order of reality. The spirit of a human being is under thesupreme control of the Tao, Universal Consciousness, dharma, or whatever a religion describesas the Ultimate Reality. This connection between the human being and the Ultimate Reality cannot be broken or crafted by a third party. This connection only exists between an individual human being and that person’s ability to empty his or her consciousness, for the purposes of enlightenment. That is the sole purpose of existence on this earthly plane. This is the universal message of all of the religions examined. The similarities far outweigh the differences.

Add the fact that the chapter on Hinduism has as single reference the Bhagavad Gītā, with no word of caution added. Where do these words come from? 
A 19th c. handbook for the primary schools? No, a paper just uploaded on Academia.
 I do not know the author and his/her university's website looks suspicious enough. Still, how did it happen that the scholarship on Buddhism, "Hinduism" (and Daoism) until now has not yet managed to eradicate such simplistic views?

Should we do more to explain that "Asian religious traditions" are more complex than that? Or are the authors of such essays biased by a too strong confirmation-bias?

Axel Gelfert on the epistemology of testimony

Can we live without relying on other people's words? And, once we have decided that we cannot, does it mean that we have to blindly rely on everything they tell us?

Next week at the IKGA (Apostelgasse 23, Wien), at 5 pm, Axel Gelfert will discuss David Hume's account of the philosophy of testimony, showing the two poles of his discussion, i.e., the necessity to rely on testimony on the one hand and the critique of miracles on the other.
Axel is a scholar of Western philosophy, but the fact that he teaches at the university of Singapore has made him sensitive to comparative issues and this lecture is, in this sense, an attempt to initiate a discussion on testimony/āptavacana reaching beyond geographic borders. Further details can be found here:

Axel Gelfert
Hume, the “Indian Prince”, and the Line Between Miraculous Testimony and Probable Belief

Datum:	Mi., 26. Juni, 17 Uhr c.t.
Ort:	Institut für Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, Seminarraum 1
	Apostelgasse 23, 1030 Wien
Organisation:	Elisa Freschi, Helmut Krasser (IKGA)

Thema/ Topic

The talk will deal with the topic of Linguistic Communication as instrument of knowledge from the point of view of David Hume.

Abstract

The aim of the talk is a thorough reconsideration of David Hume's views on the word of others as a source of knowledge. Much of the discussion of Hume’s views on testimony has traditionally revolved around his essay ‘Of Miracles’ (Section 10 of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding), in which he argues for categorical rejection as the only rational response to alleged miracles. Yet, the specific shortcomings of miraculous testimony are hardly representative of the large class of ordinary beliefs we justifiedly acquire on the basis of everyday testimony -- and which may nonetheless include information about distant lands and ancient times. The fact that Hume acknowledges the special status of miraculous testimony is evident from his argumentative strategy: instead of calling into question the credibility, sincerity, or competence of the witnesses involved in the various historical cases of (alleged) ‘miracles’, Hume grants that the testifiers in question exhibit ‘gravity’, ‘solidity’, ‘probity’, ‘candour’, ‘veracity’, ‘unquestioned integrity’, and other fine epistemic characteristics. Yet he demands that we ought to reject miraculous testimony, even when we receive it from reputable witnesses. By contrast, ordinary testimony is showered with praise by Hume. In a famous phrase that has perhaps not been taken seriously enough by contemporary interpreters, Hume writes that ‘there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men’. And yet a number of questions remain: How are we to manage instances of testimony that we encounter in everyday life? And how can we draw a line between ‘miraculous’ and (merely) ‘marvellous’ testimony? Was the ‘Indian prince’ (in Hume's — inherited and embellished — anecdote) right to reject the Dutch ambassador's testimony that, in the cold weather of Holland, water becomes so solid that an elephant could walk on it?

top↑ Vortragender/ Speaker

Axel Gelfert

Axel Gelfert completed his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge in 2005, having previously studied Physics at the Humboldt University in Berlin and the University of Oxford. Before his current position at the Philosophy Department of the National University of Singapore, he held a Junior Fellowship at Collegium Budapest (Institute for Advanced Study) in Hungary, where he also guest-lectured in the Department of Philosophy and History of Science (Budapest University of Technology and Economics). In the summer of 2009, and again in the first half of 2011, he was a Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Edinburgh.
He has widely published on History of Philosophy, Epistemology of Testimony, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science and Technology. You can read more of him on his page on Academia.


For further posts on the epistemology of testimony, see here. On comparative philosophy, see here.

The next conferences: DOT, IIGRS, CBC, PhC, etc.

While you are waiting for the DOT people to let you know whether they accepted your panel/your presentation —which you have probably sent before the deadline, i.e., before the 31st of March 2013— and you ask yourself what is happening to the old good Germans (and, in case you are Italian, while you are waiting for the results of the ASN), you might consider:

1. 1. submitting an abstract for the next IIGRS conference (the deadline is the 30th of June and you will know by the 4th of July!)
2. 2. submitting an abstract for the Philosophers' Cocoon Conference (did not I tell you that we [=scholars of Indian philosophy] have to show that we are also doing philosophy?). The deadline is July the 1st and decisions will be communicated by August the 1st. 
3. 3. coming to the next CBC conference in Turin (September, 4th to 7th)
4. 4. starting thinking about the next conferences: CBC conference in Rome (May 2014), Dharmakīrti conference in Heidelberg, IABS conference in Vienna (both in August 2014), WSC in Thailand (June–July 2015).

Am I missing something?

For my comments on the IIGRS, see this post. For my introduction to the CB Project see this one.

New Sanskrit-related Job within SARIT

SARIT is a project for the advanced digitilization of Sanskrit texts. In other words, it does not only make digital Sanskrit texts available, but it also tag them according to the TEI (Text Encoding Initiative). Recently, the project has received further fundings and Birgit Kellner has posted on Indology a job application for a project-coordinator. If you have at least an MA in South Asian Studies (or Buddhist Studies) and enjoy working with TEI, I recommend you to apply.

Project coordinator

(50% German academic salary scale TVL-13, 36 months)

The successful applicant  oversees  and  organizes  the  production  of TEI-conformant digital editions and actively participates in the ongoing development and refinement of markup in consideration of the specific nature and structure of Sanskrit literature. He or she also acts as main liaison with the partners in Columbia and with technical staff of the  Heidelberg  Research  Architecture  (HRA),  Heidelberg’s  digital  humanities  unit (http://www.asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de/en/hra-portal.html).

Candidates should hold a MA or equivalent degree in Indology, Buddhist Studies or related field at the time of appointment. Knowledge of Sanskrit is required; proficiency in English is necessary. German is  not required,  but German language classes  are available upon request.

To apply, send CV, academic transcripts, a one-page statement of motivation and names of two professors as references to Ina Chebbi (chebbi@asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de), subject line “SARIT coordinator.” Send all documents as one PDF file.

The deadline for applications is 31 July 2013. Interviews will be conducted via Skype. The successful applicant is expected to start by 1 October 2013.

Heidelberg University is an equal opportunity/affirmative-action employer. In case of equality of qualification and suitability of applicants, applications made by female researchers will be given preferential consideration. We also encourage and welcome applications from disabled persons.