2017 HSF LEA Educational Partner of the Year

The University of Chicago recognized by HSF as a leader in education.

 

Published on Apr 24, 2017

From the Hispanic Scholarship Fund’s 2017 Leaders in Education Awards.

Advertisements

Stevanovich Institute on the Formation of Knowledge Announcement

Workshop: Comparing Practices of Knowledge

When: Monday, January 9, 2017 4:306:00 p.m.

More information to come.

Picked up from: http://events.uchicago.edu/cal/event/showEventMore.rdo.

The Stevanovich Center

The Stevanovich Center advances the understanding of the increasingly complex world of financial markets by integrating mathematics, statistics, and economics. The Center brings together leading academic researchers and financial professionals whose insights from daily experience in the markets can help translate theory into improved practice. This interaction will lead to more sophisticated tools to address challenges that range from analyzing, visualizing, and interpreting massive data sets, to building more accurate, tractable, and robust models to measure, price, and hedge risk.

The Center has researchers from the University of Chicago and around the world (People), ranging from senior faculty to Ph.D. students. Both faculty and students are spread around the departments of the university, and the Center is a meeting place for interaction, and for Seminars and Conferences. Our newly refurbished building provides physical space where University of Chicago researchers as well as visitors from academia and the marketplace work, meet, discuss, share and debate ideas that advance our understanding of the mathematical basis of financial markets.

The main focus of the Center is quantitative finance, ranging from mathematical finance via financial econometrics to asset pricing.

Prof. Shadi Bartsch-Zimmer discusses humanities and the Stevanovich Institute

Interlitq interviews Shadi Bartsch-Zimmer in “The Groves of Academe” series. Read it here: http://www.interlitq.org/groves/shadi-bartsch/job.php

Retrieved from SIFK.uchicago.edu.

Stevanovich Center for Financial Mathematics

Review of 2013-2014 Accomplishments and Activities

Thanks to your philanthropic partnership with the University of Chicago, the past year has yielded impressive results across campus and beyond.

The following sections provide an updated snapshot of the far-reaching impact of your generosity on the University community.

  • Seminars at the Stevanovich Center: Seminars led by University of Chicago researchers as well as visitors from academia and the marketplace work, meet, discuss, share and debate ideas that advance our understanding of the mathematical basis of financial markets.
  • Stevanovich Student Fellowships: The Stevanovich Student Fellowship is awarded to University of Chicago PhD students in economics, mathematics, or statistics who work on novel techniques in financial econometrics/statistics and/or financial mathematics, or econometrics/statistics research that could lead to applications in finance and economics.
  • Stevanovich Center Conferences: At its core, the Stevanovich Center advances the understanding of the increasingly complex world of financial markets by integrating mathematics, statistics, and economics. Both faculty and students are spread around the departments of the university and the Stevanovich Center is a meeting place for interaction.
  • Karl Weintraub Professorship in History and the College: Constantin Fasolt continues to serve with distinction as the Karl J. Weintraub Professor of History and the College.

Retrieved from http://stewardship.uchicago.edu/stevanovich/.

2016-2018 Research Theme at Stevanovich Institute on the Formation of Knowledge: Comparing Practices of Knowledge

Excerpt from the Stevanovich Institute on the Formation of Knowledge’s website:

“The SIFK 2016-18 research theme is Comparing Practices of Knowledge.  The intensity of contemporary culture contact is providing dramatic illustration of the potential for confluence between frameworks for knowledge—Scientific?  Indigenous?  Non-western?  Religious? Universalizing? Local?  We invite scholars to do research at the meeting point of these different frameworks, delineating each framework’s particular approach to the legitimization of knowledge and explaining the impact of different knowledge-assumptions.

Knowledge claims require a context of assumptions and purposes in order to make sense.  Different eras and areas often offer different frameworks of explanation, different tacit understandings of how the world works and what it means to give reasons.  What binds or associates different ways of knowing to one another, and what divides them?  How has the existence of these multiple systems been studied in the past, and how should they be studied now?

A long-standing problem arises from the tales that practitioners of one form of knowledge tell about themselves.  These not only justify their asserted facts, but their very ways of acquiring and verifying knowledge:  knowledge not simply as lists of propositions, but knowledge as practice.  These dynamics raise the question of whether any one form of knowledge can easily account for, let alone make room for, any other?

Such situations bring the institutions we know well (fact-finding, archiving, critical assessment, experiment) in contact with institutions that apply different criteria to legitimate knowledge claims. Is it a matter of the majority culture making room for the exception, of confluence between different streams (as if a common denominator could be found), or of such far-reaching incompatibility that only words like alternative can describe the relation among the fields of knowledge?

The notion of rationality and its connection to science may serve as a case in point.  According to a common view, rational activity consists in the derivation of abstract principles from observations or experiments that have been conducted methodically and applied to an extended range of objects or events in order to understand their behavior or predict their dispositions.  This description would fit many different kinds of knowledge systems, which might thus be considered rational. Knowledge systems the world over might therefore be studied as rational or, indeed, claim rationality for themselves.  Many knowledge systems, including those of Plato, medieval Christianity and the post-Cartesian West, claim to have discovered their principles, and not just their facts, out there in the world, or to have received them from some source beyond the human.  They arrogate to themselves a universality and necessity, which sanctions them to judge other claims to knowledge that might look rather different.

Such rationalities also press us to ask what purpose they might serve if not the scientific one of providing predictability about the natural world and improving life quality through the adaptation of technology.  This invites us to ask what exactly those scientific practices are (e.g. experiment, quantification, peer review); how they stand in relationship to other modes of acquiring knowledge; and what claims might be unique to this form of knowledge alone.

These questions broadly underpin the Stevanovich Institute’s 2016-18 research agenda. Our aim is to put different approaches towards knowledge in discourse with each other even as we conduct “deep digs” into those approaches.”