↓ Skip to main content

From Eminent Men to Excellent Universities: University Rankings as Calculative Devices

Overview of attention for article published in Minerva, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 442)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
57 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
From Eminent Men to Excellent Universities: University Rankings as Calculative Devices
Published in
Minerva, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11024-017-9329-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Björn Hammarfelt, Sarah de Rijcke, Paul Wouters

Abstract

Global university rankings have become increasingly important 'calculative devices' for assessing the 'quality' of higher education and research. Their ability to make characteristics of universities 'calculable' is here exemplified by the first proper university ranking ever, produced as early as 1910 by the American psychologist James McKeen Cattell. Our paper links the epistemological rationales behind the construction of this ranking to the sociopolitical context in which Cattell operated: an era in which psychology became institutionalized against the backdrop of the eugenics movement, and in which statistics of science became used to counter a perceived decline in 'great men.' Over time, however, the 'eminent man,' shaped foremost by heredity and upbringing, came to be replaced by the excellent university as the emblematic symbol of scientific and intellectual strength. We also show that Cattell's ranking was generative of new forms of the social, traces of which can still be found today in the enactment of 'excellence' in global university rankings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 21 29%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 36 50%
Arts and Humanities 4 6%
Engineering 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 16 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. 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 02 November 2023.
All research outputs
#574,890
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Minerva
#8
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,019
of 331,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Minerva
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 331,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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