The nineteenth century was one in which millions of people acquired certificates and other credentials attesting that they knew what they claimed to know. These credentials resulted from mass examinations: systems of infrastructure that aspired to procedural objectivity. Among the key feature of these exams were the new numerical marking systems used to compare and commensurate different answers on these exams, because these numbers could generate averages and other formal abstractions of knowledge. While the resulting tests could be restrictive for the individual, they could be positive and even creative. Exam successes and credentials helped people work collectively in groups, giving each group member the confidence that other members knew what they claimed to know.
AgarJon.2003. The Government Machine . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
2.
AlcockThomas.1868. Questions on Huxley's Lessons in Elementary Physiology . London: Macmillan.
3.
Anonymous. 1871. “A Competitive Examination Hall in China. ” Once a Week 7: 323–325.
4.
ArmstrongHenry Edward.1973. “
Our Need to Honour Huxley's Will: Huxley Memorial Lecture. ” In H.E. Armstrong and the Teaching of Science 1880–1930 , edited by BrockW. H., 55–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
AshworthWilliam J.2021. The Trinity Circle: Anxiety, Intelligence, and Knowledge Creation in Nineteenth-Century England . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
6.
BabbageCharles.1832. On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures . London: Charles Knight.
7.
BabbageCharles.1864. Passages from the Life of a Philosopher . London: Longman & Co.
8.
BarnesBarry.1982. T.S. Kuhn and Social Science . New York: Columbia University Press.
9.
BarnesBarry, BloorDavid, and HenryJohn. 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
BeckNaomi.2005. “‘Enrico Ferri's Scientific Socialism: A Marxist Interpretation of Herbert Spencer's Organic Analogy’. ” Journal of the History of Biology 38: 301–325. doi: 10.1007/s10739-004-3796-2.
11.
BuschLawrence.2011. Standards: Recipes for Reality . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ChadwickEdwin.1829. “A General, Medical, and Statistical History of the Present Condition of Public Charity in France. ” London Review of Politics, Society, Literature, Art, and Science 1 (2): 536–556.
14.
ChatterjeeRajendranath, toHuxleyT.H.. 1888. Calcutta, May 22. Huxley Papers, Imperial College Archives, 12.174.
15.
Chevassus-au-LouisNicolas.2019. Fraud in the Lab: The High Stakes of Scientific Research . Translated by ElliottNicholas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
ClarkWilliam.2006. Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
The Committee of Council on Education. 1868. Report of the Committee of Council of Education, 1867–8. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.
18.
DastonLorraine, and GalisonPeter. 2007. Objectivity . New York: Zone.
19.
DouglasHeather.2004. “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity. ” Synthese 138 (3): 453–473. doi: 10.1023/B:SYNT.0000016451.18182.91.
20.
EddyMatthew.2016. “The Interactive Notebook: How Students Learned to Keep Notes During the Scottish Enlightenment. ” Book History 19 (1): 86–131. doi: 10.1353/bh.2016.0002.
21.
EdgertonDavid.2006. The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900 . London: Profile.
22.
ElmanBenjamin A.2013. Civil Examinations and Meritocracy in Late Imperial China . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
ElwickJames.2021. Making a Grade: Victorian Examinations and the Rise of Standardized Testing . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
FardonRichard.1999. Mary Douglas: An Intellectual Biography . London: Routledge.
26.
FaulknerRobert, and BeckerHoward. 2009. Do You Know: The Jazz Repertoire in Action . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
FodenFrank.1989. The Examiner: James Booth and the Origin of Common Examinations. Leeds: Leeds Studies in Adult and Continuing Education.
28.
GalisonPeter.1987. How Experiments End . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
GingrasYves.2016. Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: Uses and Abuses . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
GoldenbergMaya J.2021. Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
31.
GoodayGraeme.1991. “‘Nature’ in the Laboratory: Domestication and Discipline with the Microscope in Victorian Life-Science. ” British Journal for the History of Science 24: 307–341. doi: 10.1017/S0007087400027382.
32.
HopwoodNick.2015. Haeckel's Embryos: Images, Evolution, and Fraud . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
33.
HulmeM.2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HutchinsEdwin.1995. Cognition in the Wild . Boston: MIT Press.
35.
HuxleyT. H.1895. Science and Education, Collected Essays Vol. III . London: MacMillan and Co.
36.
HuxleyT. H.1899. “
Technical Education [1877]. ” In Science & Education , 404–426. London: MacMillan and Co.
37.
LamplandMartha, and StarSusan Leigh.2009. “
Reckoning with Standards. ” In Standards and Their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life , edited by LamplandM. and StarS. L., 3
––
24. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
38.
LightJennifer.1999. “When Computers Were Women. ” Technology and Culture 40 (3): 455–483. doi: 10.1353/tech.1999.0128.
39.
LightmanBernard V2015. Global Spencerism: The Communication and Appropriation of a British Evolutionist . Leiden: Brill.
40.
LloydGeoffrey, and SivinNathan. 2002. The Way and the Word: Science and Medicine in Early China and Greece . New Haven: Yale University Press.
41.
ReeseWilliam J.2013. Testing Wars in the Public Schools: A Forgotten History . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
RichmondMarsha L.2006. “The 1909 Darwin Celebration: Reexamining Evolution in the Light of Mendel, Mutation, and Meiosis. ” Isis 97: 447–484. doi: 10.1086/508076.
43.
RudwickM. J. S.1985. The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
SandelMichael J.2020. “
The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? New York: Farrar. ” Straus and Giroux .
45.
SecordJames A.2000. Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
StrayChristopher.2001. “The Shift from Oral to Written Examination: Cambridge and Oxford 1700–1900. ” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 8: 33–50. doi: 10.1080/09695940120033243.
47.
TengSsu-yu.1943. “Chinese Influence on the Western Examination System: I. Introduction. ” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 7: 267–312. doi: 10.2307/2717830.
WarwickAndrew.2003. Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
WarwickAndrew, and KaiserDavid. 2005. “
Kuhn, Foucault, and the Power of Pedagogy. ” In Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives , edited by KaiserD., 393–409. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51.
WellsHerbert George.1893. Text-book of Biology, University Correspondence College Tutorial Series . London: W.B. Clive & Co.
52.
WellsHerbert George.1895. The Correspondence of H.G. Wells, Volume 1, 1880–1903 (1998, ed. David C. Smith), December 10.
53.
WinchPeter.1958. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. Third Impression (Work Some Corrections) Edition . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
54.
WinterAlison.1997. “
The Construction of Orthodoxies and Heterodoxies in the Early Victorian Life Sciences. ” In Victorian Science in Context , edited by LightmanB., 24–50. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
55.
ZengKangmin.1999. Dragon Gate: Competitive Examinations and Their Consequences . London: Cassell.
56.
ZilselEdgar.2003. The Social Origins of Modern Science , edited by RavenD., KrohnW., and CohenR. S.. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
