↓ Skip to main content

The Sparrow Question: Social and Scientific Accord in Britain, 1850–1900

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
The Sparrow Question: Social and Scientific Accord in Britain, 1850–1900
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10739-016-9455-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Holmes

Abstract

During the latter-half of the nineteenth century, the utility of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) to humankind was a contentious topic. In Britain, numerous actors from various backgrounds including natural history, acclimatisation, agriculture and economic ornithology converged on the bird, as contemporaries sought to calculate its economic cost and benefit to growers. Periodicals and newspapers provided an accessible and anonymous means of expression, through which the debate raged for over 50 years. By the end of the century, sparrows had been cast as detrimental to agriculture. Yet consensus was not achieved through new scientific methods, instruments, or changes in practice. This study instead argues that the rise and fall of scientific disciplines and movements paved the way for consensus on "the sparrow question." The decline of natural history and acclimatisation stifled a raging debate, while the rising science of economic ornithology sought to align itself with agricultural interests: the latter overwhelmingly hostile to sparrows.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 43%
Professor 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 29%
Philosophy 1 14%
Environmental Science 1 14%
Psychology 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2023.
All research outputs
#4,359,256
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#79
of 503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,760
of 322,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them