{"title":"了解相同的东西:大规模考试、证书和共享知识的基础设施","authors":"James Elwick","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2023.2173457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT 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.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Knowing the same things: mass examinations, credentials, and infrastructures of shared knowledge\",\"authors\":\"James Elwick\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03080188.2023.2173457\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2023.2173457\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2023.2173457","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Knowing the same things: mass examinations, credentials, and infrastructures of shared knowledge
ABSTRACT 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.
期刊介绍:
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews is a quarterly journal that aims to explore the social, philosophical and historical interrelations of the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, medicine and technology with the social sciences, humanities and arts.