Awards, Public Recognition, and Evaluation

Rafael Yann Schogler, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Scientic authority or the power and legitimation to contribute in scientic debates is granted by the recognition of peers and
the public. To be granted recognition and esteemed by colleagues the visibility of discoveries, arguments, or theories are
a prerequisite. One form of distinction manifests by being read, cited, or referred to in speeches, i.e., being part of the
academic discourse. Public evaluation and distinction manifests in practices of issuing awards, grants, or prizes to researchers
and their institutions; issuing honorary degrees to academics and other public gures, but also by evaluating and ranking
research, researchers, and their institutions.

Introduction bestowed upon a colleague inside a narrow scientic commu-

Scientic authority or the power and legitimation to
contribute in scientic debates is granted by the recognition of
peers and the public. To be granted recognition and esteemed
by colleagues the visibility of discoveries, arguments, or
theories are a prerequisite. In this article, the most visible
element of such recognition the awarding of prizes will be
discussed. Public distinctions such as awards, honorary
degrees, and other public appraisals help to establish academic
recognition and at the same time organize the academic eld.
Awards make peer recognition, hierarchies, and hegemonic
scientic discourses visible. Systematic studies dealing with
the contemporary or historical role of awards in the social and
behavioral sciences are rare. Rather, existing literature either
deals with histories of single prizes, or more broadly with the
phenomenon of reputation and recognition (H.S. Becker, P.
Bourdieu, R. K. Merton). Taking this lack of empirical exami-
nation into account the following lines will shortly elaborate
on functions of recognition and public distinction in the
academic eld before providing some historical background to
the awarding of prizes and offering a tentative typology of
awards in the academic eld. A selection of international pri-
zes will be depicted before focusing on atypical exponents
such as honorary degrees and forms of collective distinction
such as higher-education rankings.
Recognition and Reputation
Scientic authority or the power and legitimation to contribute
in scientic debates is granted by the recognition of peers and
the public (Bourdieu, 1976). Prizes, awards, and other forms of
public distinction are compelling signs of public and peer
recognition. Not only are these an institutionalized sign for the
acceptance of the work of a researcher, but they also contribute
to making research and researchers visible in the public sphere.
To be granted recognition and esteemed by colleagues the
visibility of discoveries, arguments, or theories are a prerequi-
site. In Howard S. Beckers (1982) description of the art world
the acceptance of an oeuvre depends on whether one is
working in an accepted style or not. Similarly, the use of specic
methods, theoretical standpoints, and arguments in the social
and behavioral sciences tend to inuence the recognition
nity. The desire for recognition manifested by being read and
cited is a main motivation for academics (Hull, 1988).
A latent but nonetheless powerful form of distinction
consists of a researcher being read, quoted in print, or referred
to in oral communication, i.e., being part of the academic
discourse. Histories of disciplines inevitably know something
such as classics or key gures that have obtained reputational
immortality. This status becomes manifest through legacy-
forming mechanisms such as naming an award, foundation,
building, or lecture hall, but also a theory, school of thought, or
controversy by the name of a researcher. This kind of scientic
reputation is also shown by including researchers in textbooks,
specialized encyclopedias, or histories of a discipline. On a less
prominent level there is the Festschrift and obituaries
honoring the work of an academic. Of similar nature are
commemorative events taking place in the memory of
a particular person. Like in the eld of arts (Lang and Lang,
1988) postmortem reputation is only established if the
deceased reached a critical mass of publications that was
conserved and distributed. Also, the study of classics and other
dead scholars could make use of records such as mail corre-
spondence with prominent colleagues, notes, or unnished
manuscripts bequeathed upon death that can contribute to the
memory of a particular person.
Patterns inuencing the reward system in science deviating
from meritocratic ideals show that public recognition of
science does not only reward talent, productivity, or the
contribution to the advancement of a scientic eld but that
institutionalized cultural capital plays a major role in the
allocation of awards. Merton (1968) described one of these
systematic deviations based on Harriet Zuckermans work on
Nobel laureates, which showed that in science eminent
scientists get disproportionately great credit for their contri-
butions to science while relatively unknown scientists tend to
get disproportionately little credit for comparable contribu-
tions (Merton, 1968: 2). The rst part the overevaluation of
recognized researchers has been remembered as the Matthew
effect. Rossiter (1993) described the (female) equivalent as the
Matilda effect, where she specically highlighted the systematic
underappreciation of the work of women in scholarship.
These systematic unbalances in recognizing the work of
scholars that ought to be meritocratic have resulted in the
practice of creating prizes for those who have not received the

332 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03017-8

recognition they were supposed to get, as an illustration one
could mention the so-called alternative Nobel Prize dis-
tinguishing improbable research (IGNobel, 2014).
Awards, Medals, and Prizes
What Bourdieu calls objectied symbolic capital are mecha-
nisms of public evaluation and distinction that fulll the role
of distinguishing an individual or a piece of research from
others explicitly. The awarding of such a distinction is enacted
in a public ritual and, in the social and behavioral sciences, it
manifests in practices of issuing awards, grants, or prizes to
researchers and their institutions; issuing honorary degrees to
academics and other public gures; but also more recently
by evaluating and ranking research, researchers, and their
institutions. Awards and prizes can relate to past research,
teaching, or an entire oeuvre. Prizes can, however, also be
awarded for prospective or ongoing research taking the form of
research grants or (prestigious) scholarships. A prominent
example for the latter are research grants issued by the Euro-
pean Research Council, established in 2007, which awards
resources of up to V 2.5 million and is often referred to as an
award. Honorary degrees have the function to honor at the
same time the recipient of the honorary degree and the insti-
tution granting the honors by claiming a relationship between
the institution and the person having received the degree.
In the arts and humanities, the practice of awarding prizes,
medals, and other forms of distinction goes back at least to
Greek drama and arts competitions in the sixth century B.C.
(English, 2002: 12). A broader array of prizes was established
in the early Renaissance (English, 2002: 2) and in the eigh-
teenth century another impetus came from royal and national
academies, professional associations as well as learned societies
(English, 2002: 2). In the eighteenth century, a series of contests
awarding solutions to societal/scientic questions were adver-
tised. These were organized to promote research in certain
elds, a practice which has been taken up again recently by, for
example, the Longitude Prize (Nesta, 2014). This latter prize
takes reference to the historical Longitude Act of 1714 that
offered a prize for a solution of the problem of longitude.
In contrast to that the distinctions offered by academies of
science, which were established since the beginning of the
seventeenth century, is mainly of symbolic nature and mani-
fests in granting seats in the academies. Usually, ordinary
members of these institutions vote to select a new member. The
number of seats in academies of science being restricted, only
a xed number of individuals can hold a seat at the same time.
This leads to the so-called phenomenon of the 41st chair
(Merton, 1968). The 41st chair refers to the limitation of 40
seats in the Acadmie franaise and the resulting situation that
a great number of distinguished personalities were not
admitted into the Acadmie, such as Descartes, Flaubert,
Molire, Pascal, Proust, Rousseau, Stendhal, or Zola. In all
[academies] there are occupants of the 41st chair, men outside
the Academy having at least the same order of talent as those
inside it (Merton, 1968: 1).
With the establishment of the Nobel Prize in the early
twentieth century, academic distinctions received an interna-
tional dimension. The internationalization of scientic prizes
Awards, Public Recognition, and Evaluation 333
in the late nineteenth century coincided with the internation-
alization of academia and the creation of international scien-
tic associations. Ever since, the number of distinctions,
awarded by an increasingly large variety of funders, grows
continually from one year to the next.
A Typology of Awards
Although one could try to differentiate prizes from awards, for
example, along the lines of whether a researcher needs to enter
a competition to win, or whether the selection undergoes
a nomination process and whether a monetary reward is
included or not, empirical evidence suggests that there is no
clear differentiation between these terms. However, a typology
of awards, medals, and prizes can be suggested that also helps
to differentiate between varying functions of these distinctions
for the recognition of researchers, science, and associated
institutions. Prizes and awards can thus be distinguished by
funder; award category; disciplinary, geographical, and insti-
tutional scope; or selection procedure. These dimensions
cannot be perceived as comprehensive as they overlap and, in
many instances, complement each other.
Boundaries Selection
Funder Award category of eligibility procedure
Academies Life work Locality (national Peers
of science international)
Foundations Past research Membership Nonresearchers
Associations Ongoing research Disciplinary Competition
boundary
Companies Future research Nonacademic Nomination
Output Academic Transparency
Funders can broadly be differentiated between academic
and nonacademic institutions, or on a slightly different level,
whether a prize is given by members of the scientic
community to honor a member thereof, or whether it is an
external organization issuing an award to scholars (and other
persons). Whereas prizes by sections of academic associa-
tions, learned societies, and the like are often quite insignif-
icant in their monetary value their reputational value within
a specic scientic community might be high. Thus the main
function of these prizes are to honor the recipient of the
award and bestow him/her with scientic capital and the
(peer) legitimation to take a leading role in ongoing debates
of the awarding epistemic community. Other relevant
academic funders are international scientic associations,
universities, and scientic journals. In contrast to that, there
are a number of nonacademic institutions such as cities,
regions, or ministries as public bodies on the one hand, and,
on the other, private institutions like foundations, NGOs, or
corporations that award prizes to scholars. Private institutions
might carry out research and/or fund research, however, they
are usually only operating on the boundaries of the academic
eld. The awards given by private funders often reect aims of
these organizations or, in some cases, have the function to
inuence the public perception of a company.
334 Awards, Public Recognition, and Evaluation
Prizes can be awarded in a multitude of categories. One
(functional) distinction is between past (reaching from single
studies to life work), ongoing, or future research. This distinc-
tion can be applied to prizes for young scholars, for lifework, or
research grants for promising future research. Another category
for awards which in some cases might overlap with the
previous differentiation is along the lines of different types of
outputs. The differentiation there can run along the lines of, for
example, best book or best paper award, prizes for innovative
teaching but also distinctions for museum installations would
form such a category.
The boundaries of eligibility describe the phenomenon
that only members of certain groups are eligible to receive
a certain award thus restricting competition. The geographical
scope of an award is characterized by the dichotomy between
locality and internationality. Local prizes restrict participation
or nomination for example, to members of a university or
researchers of a region, city, etc. and often serve to promote and
fund local research. By dening thematic priorities, such local
prizes can help to establish a research prole for a region,
university, etc. Eligibility can also be restricted by requiring
membership to specic organizations, associations, etc. In
contrast to that are prizes that allow for any person to be
eligible for nomination. In this latter category the number of
potential nominees is, however, restricted by traditions con-
nected to prizes, dominant ideas concerning the kind of
research, and researcher to be distinguished and, the restricted
scope of potential nominees known to those involved in the
selection procedure. Third, disciplinary or thematic boundaries
are dened in call texts, the general aims of an institution, or
distinction, e.g., a prize can be designed for cognitive
psychology, or open to all disciplines. Especially for interna-
tional distinctions the boundaries of a prize are even broader,
as some awards are of more general nature aiming at dis-
tinguishing personalities for their contribution to the
advancement of humanity at large. Fur these types of awards
members of other social groups than scholars such as polit-
ical activists, journalists, writers, and public intellectuals at
large are equally eligible.
Two dimensions concerning the selection of award
winners shall be discussed: First, the technical procedures and
second, patterns inuencing the reward system in science.
Broadly speaking two technical procedures exist; the selection
through application and the selection through nomination.
In both scenarios a more or less complex set of actors, boards,
referees from within the academic eld or not, but also
regulations and traditions associated to the prize need to be
taken into account. The social procedure leading to the
selection can, for many prizes and awards, be compared to
that of peer review procedures leading to fellowships as
studied for example by Lamont (2009). The nomination and
selection by a board consisting of scholars and nonscholars is
a pattern found prototypically for the selection of awardees of
international distinctions. The combination of competition
and peer review, in contrast, is characteristic for research
grants and young researchers awards. Another promising
distinction for the study of awards is the degree of trans-
parency chosen in the selection procedure. Transparency
concerning the selection of a winner is not a necessary
prerequisite for a prize to be esteemed of high quality. Some
institutions try to legitimize their awards by offering explicitly
transparent procedures.
International Prizes and Awards
In the social and behavioral sciences, a series of international
prizes were established since the end of World War II. To
become an asset to a scholar being distinguished with an award
it needs continuous funding, visibility inside the relevant peer-
group, and a recognition of its own.
International scope and the public recognition of a prize are
not only serving the renown of researchers, but are also
a resource for local prestige. It is well known, for example, that
the Nobel Prize is Swedish. To serve the renown of the
awarding institution and the researcher awards need to
establish a reputation of their own. Awards obtain their repu-
tation through input- and output-legitimizing procedures.
High monetary endowment is an element that can help to
obtain reputation, as it may increase the public visibility of
a prize. However, the correlation between the monetary value
and (public) recognition of a prize is not positive. Prizes with
low endowment can become more reputable than awards
offering a more signicant reward, e.g., the Fields Medal in
mathematics has a comparably low monetary endowment, is,
however, regularly referred to as the Nobel for mathematics.
Transparent procedures leading to a distinction are another
criterion, which may increase input legitimacy of a prize. This
may include making nominations public and offering insight
to the process leading to the selection of an awardee. However,
there are examples where transparency is not given and the
reputation of a prize mainly depends on the successful output
i.e., the continuous selection of broadly accepted awardees.
Most prominent is the Nobel Prize, where nominations,
evaluations, deliberations, and nal decisions concerning the
prizes were to be kept secret (Crawford, 2002: 3). Further, at
the time of nomination it is unclear who was invited to
propose nominations besides those with a permanent entitle-
ment to nominate. In the case of the Nobels, only historical
cases older than 50 years can be accessed and scrutinized.
Ultimately, it is the output i.e., selection of individuals and
institutions that stand the moral, professional, and public
scrutiny that will have the strongest inuence on the reputation
of the award and award-giving institution. Institutions award-
ing prizes thus have a high interest in selecting laureates that
already have a certain reputation and will not deceive the
expectations of the award givers. In the case of the Nobels, this
may explain the increasing average age of awardees over time.
Although the Nobels are awarded for the best research in a year,
by choosing individuals that have already accomplished a great
amount of their lifework the probability of unexpected future
turns that might then be associated with the Nobels are low.
In contrast to offering a high monetary endowment to increase
public visibility, building a reputation of an award based on
the achievements, and recognition of the researchers selected
takes time. The character of a prize can also be established
through other forms of public distinction: for example, in
literature the Booker prize gained its reputation by delivering
annual scandals (English, 2002: 114).
The Nobel Prize, one of the rst international awards,
managed to gain reputation in a short period of time. In the

social and behavioral sciences the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in
Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was only
introduced in 1969. Since, 74 laureates, thereof one woman,
were distinguished with this prize. Although the endowment of
$ 1.2 million in 2013 is higher than most other research prizes
the awardees often only receive parts thereof as the prize can be
divided among three scholars. The high reputation and public
awareness for the Nobel Prize has transformed it into a refer-
ence for other prizes especially in domains where no Nobel is
given. In mathematics, as mentioned, the Canadian Fields
Medals compete with the much higher endowed Norwe-
gian Abel prize for status of Nobel Prize in mathematics. A
prize deliberately aiming at rewarding elds that are not
covered by the Nobel Prizes is the John W. Kluge Prize hosted
by the Kluge Center in the Library of Congress and rst awarded
in 2003 to Leszek Kolakowski. It is endowed with $ 1 million
and covers disciplines such as history, philosophy, politics,
anthropology, sociology, religion, criticism in the arts and
humanities, and linguistics. Next to these Nobel substitutes
there are also Nobel Prizes in categories, such as literature and
the peace prize that were awarded to individuals related to the
social sciences. Among others, the latter was awarded to three
women with a more or less close relationship to social sciences:
Jane Addams (1931), Emily Greene Balch (1946), and Alva
Myrdal (1982) (for details on these three see Misztal, 2009).
Also, Theodore Mommsen (1902) and Bertrand Russell
(1950), a historian and a philosopher, received the Nobel Prize
in literature.
In the natural sciences these international prizes awarded by
academies and foundations have most recently been com-
plemented by a series of highly endowed awards funded
mainly by US-American, Russian, and Asian Internet entre-
preneurs. These latter prizes dene as their goal to make the
sciences more visible and to raise the awareness of excellent
science in certain elds. Among these prizes we nd the
Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences (2013) and the Funda-
mental Physics Prize (2012) both endowed with $ 3 million or
the Tang Prize (2013) endowed with over $ 1.5 million
(Merali, 2013). The exceptionally high monetary value of these
prizes is complemented by a presentation of the laureates
reminding events staged for performing arts. The individuals or
institutions are put into the center of attention with great media
impact. Such presentations provide the opportunity to present
the prizewinner as well as the company/brand/institution
hosting the prize.
The functions of awarding prizes are thus at least threefold:
honoring the recipient, promoting the awarding organization
and improving its public prole, and informing a larger public
on scientic issues or the aims of an organization.
International Social Science and Humanities Prizes
Historically the rst renowned international disciplinary prize
was the already mentioned Nobel Prize in economics estab-
lished on an annual basis in 1969 and rst awarded to Ragnar
Frisch and Jan Tinbergen for applied dynamic models for the
analysis of economic processes (see Nobel Media, 2014). A
prize with an even longer tradition is the Italian Antonio Fel-
trinelli Prize given by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,
which names itself the oldest academy founded in 1603. The
Awards, Public Recognition, and Evaluation 335
Feltrinelli Prize is split in distinctions limited to Italian citizens
and an international prize. In contrast to the Nobel Prize, the
disciplines covered rotate since 1950 on a yearly basis and
include the arts, music, literature, history, philosophy, medi-
cine, and physical and mathematical sciences.
Other examples for awards of multidisciplinary nature that
remain restricted to the social sciences and humanities, are for
example, the European Amal Prize for sociology and social
sciences (Premio Europeo Amal per la Sociologia e le Scienze
Sociali) established by the Italian Association of Sociology and
rst awarded in 1987 to Norbert Elias. The selection was made
by a jury that included distinguished social scientists. Another
highly renowned prize is the Prince of Asturia Prize that is
among others awarded in the categories of social sciences as
well as communication and humanities. In the social sciences,
it was rst awarded in 1981 to Romn Perpi. More recently
we saw the creation of the Holberg Prize by the Norwegian
government to distinguish research in the arts and humanities,
social science, law, or theology, which is awarded 4.5 million
Norwegian Krone. The rst awardee in 2004 was Julia Kristeva.
Prizes of even broader scope that are among others relevant
for social and behavioral sciences are those that commemorate
humanistic goals. These prizes usually do not have disciplinary
boundaries and are also awarded to personalities coming from
nonacademic elds. Examples for early prizes of this category
would be the Heine Prize, which is a biannual prize established
by the city of Dsseldorf to commemorate the 175th birthday
of Heinrich Heine and currently endowed with V 50 000 or the
Peace Prize of the German Book Trade rst awarded in 1950
with the aim to reintroduce humanist thought into society
(Book Prize, 2014) in Germany. In 1958, the Erasmus Prize was
installed for a person who has made an exceptional contri-
bution to culture, of scholarship, in Europe and beyond
(Erasmus Prize, 2014). It was rst awarded to the people of
Austria and was later awarded to distinguished scholars such as
Claude Lvi-Strauss or Jrgen Habermas.
Honorary Degrees Honoris Causa
Honoris causa or degrees awarded for the sake of honor are
distinctions honoring public gures for general societal
achievements, support for academia, and/or for academic
merits. Inside the scientic community, the practice of award-
ing honorary degrees is controversial. By borrowing names of
academic merits (Bachelor, Masters, Doctor) honorary degrees
suggest a honorication of academic work. The practice of
awarding such degrees to individuals that have not gathered
merits in academia, however, is inconsistent with idealized
conceptions of science. By granting such degrees to (potential)
donors, politicians, and other public gures to gain their
(monetary) support, it is argued that the ideals of free and
uninterested research are broken.
The tradition of granting honorary degrees is traced back to
fteenth century England, where academic degrees were a form
of currency for being granted recognition by the Church and
the State (Buxton and Gibson, 1935: 84). The earliest traces of
an honorary degree lead to Lionel Woodville, Dean of Exeter,
the brother-in-law of Edward IV and a future bishop who was
awarded the rst honoric degree in Oxford in 1478 or 1479.
336 Awards, Public Recognition, and Evaluation
These early honorary degrees furthermore granted considerable
privileges in the university (Buxton and Gibson, 1935)
whereas in modern times privileges are more restricted and
are comparable to those granted to alumni (e.g., donating
into alumni funds, using certain sporting facilities, faculty
clubs, etc.).
The USA has a strong tradition of granting honorary
degrees. Next to demonstrating proximity between leading
public gures and academia, such honors also had the
function to reward wider societal engagements. The rst
honorary doctorate is traced back to the sixth president of
Harvard College in 1692, Increase Mather (Lady, 1967: 198).
The title allowed Harvard College to become a University
and grant doctoral degrees of its own. After independence in
the late eighteenth century colleges conferred degrees to
many military and political leaders. George Washington for
example, received ve awards (Lady, 1967: 199). In the
1870s, more honorary than earned PhDs were awarded in
the USA (see Lady, 1967: 200), which even led to universities
adopting regulations limiting the awarding of such degrees at
the end of the century. Other institutions like the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology, Rice, Cornell, Stanford and
military academies have never or only in very rare circum-
stances awarded honorary degrees (see MIT News, 2001;
Freiherr, 1979: 23).
Ranking Research
Public distinctions on the individual level come in the form
of awards, prizes, medals, and the like. On the collective level
public evaluation of research comes in the form of rankings
of institutions of higher education, academic journals, etc. It
is a phenomenon of the twentieth and twenty-rst century.
The rankings contribute in establishing a (seemingly)
rationalization of the hierarchy inside and between institu-
tions, researchers, and disciplines. The evaluation and,
henceforth, ranking of research based on a limited number of
indicators is often attributed to broader developments in the
organization of knowledge-systems that took place since the
end of World War II. The introduction of the so-called
entrepreneurial university, public management, and a more
general lack of legitimacy to spend public funds contributed
to establishing a comprehensive system of public evaluation
of research. Also, the massive expansion of the tertiary
educational sector and the consequential growth of the
academic eld since the 1950s brought an unprecedented
increase in competition among educational and research
institutions on a global scale.
In the last decade, the Times Higher Education World
University Rankings, the Academic Ranking of World
Universities, also known as the Shanghai Ranking, and the QS
World University Rankings are among the most inuential
rankings of universities on a global scale (for a comparison
see StatSilk, 2014). The rankings use different sets of indica-
tors to compare institutions and combine these with peer
review procedures and surveys among researchers and
students. On the European scale the Centre for Higher
Education Development, founded by the German Rectors
Conference and the Bertelsmann Foundation, evaluates
German Universities since 1998 and selected universities on
a European scale since 2010. In contrast to these global
rankings, national mechanisms of collective evaluation that
compare the performance (or what is understood as being an
academic performance) are used by policy-makers to take
decisions concerning the distribution of funds, the estab-
lishment of programs of excellence or the penalization of
underperforming institutions.
Public evaluation of research does not only take place on
the organizational level but is also practiced on the individual
level. The evaluation of performance based on predened
indicators, e.g., the publishing of a certain amount of journal
articles in a specied timeframe, is used to rationalize
personnel decisions such as awarding tenure. A more open
approach to evaluation is taken by social media platforms
where similarly to the rating of holiday destinations
regional, national, and international Internet-based services
have developed portals for the evaluation of courses, lecturers,
and professors.
See also: Becker, Howard (1928); Bourdieu, Pierre
(19302002); Habermas, Jrgen (1929); Levi-Strauss,
Claude (19082009); Merton, Robert K (19102003); Myrdal,
Alva (190286); Recognition, Politics of: Perspectives from
Social Work and Sociology; Reputation.
Bibliography
Becker, H.S., 1982. Art Worlds. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Book Prize, 2014. The History of the Peace Prize. http://www.friedenspreis-des-
deutschen-buchhandels.de/445945/ (accessed 08.15.14.).
Bourdieu, P., 1976. Les modes de domination. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences
Sociales 122132.
Buxton, D., Gibson, S., 1935. Oxford University Ceremonies. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Buxton, D.L., Strickland, B., 1935. Oxford University Ceremonies. Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
Crawford, E.T., 2002. The Nobel Population 19011950: A Census of the Nominators
and Nominees for the Prizes in Physics and Chemistry. Universal Academy Press,
Tokyo, Japan.
English, J.F., 2002. Winning the culture game: prizes, awards, and the rules of art.
Literary History 33, 109135.
Erasmus Prize, 2014. Prize and Adornments. http://www.erasmusprijs.org/ (accessed
08.15.14.).
Freiherr, G.T., 1979. Is there an honorary doctor in the house? Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning 11, 2225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00091383.1979.10569646.
Haefner, A.E., 1958. Honoris causa. The Journal of Higher Education 29, 321351.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1978862.
Helsvig, K.G., 2014. The Abel prize: the missing Nobel in mathematics?: the Abel prize.
Centaurus 56, 130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.12038.
Hull, D.L., 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and
Conceptual Development of Science, Science and its Conceptual Foundations.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
IGNobel, 2014. About the Ig Nobel Prizes. http://www.improbable.com/ig/ (accessed
08.15.14.).
Lady, R.A., 1967. Honoris causa: an examination of the doctor of philosophy degree.
The Journal of Higher Education 38, 197205. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
1979043.
Lamont, M., 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic
Judgment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lang, G.E., Lang, K., 1988. Recognition and renown: the survival of artistic reputation.
American Journal of Sociology 94 (1), 79109. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/
stable/2781023.
Merali, Z., 2013. Science prizes: the new Nobels. Nature 498, 152154. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/498152a.

Merton, R.K., 1968. The Matthew Effect in science: the reward and communication
systems of science are considered. Science (New York) 159, 5663.
Misztal, B., 2009. A Nobel Trinity: Jane Addams, Emily Greene Balch and Alva Myrdal.
The American Sociologist 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-009-9081-2.
MIT News on Campus and around the World, 2001. No Honorary Degrees Is an MIT
Tradition Going Back to . Thomas Jefferson. http://newsofce.mit.edu/2001/
commdegrees (accessed 08.15.14.).
Nesta, 2014. Longitude Prize 2014. http://www.longitudeprize.org (accessed
08.15.14.).
Nobel Media, 2014. All Prizes in Economic Sciences. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_
prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/index.html (accessed 08.15.14.).
Awards, Public Recognition, and Evaluation 337
Rosenberg, R.P., 1961. The rst American doctor of philosophy degree: a centennial
salute to Yale, 18611961. The Journal of Higher Education 32, 387394. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/1978076.
Rossiter, M.W., 1993. The Matthew Matilda Effect in science. Social Studies of
Science 23, 325341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004.
StatSilk, 2014. Where Are the Worlds Top Universities? Interactive Maps Comparing
Three Rankings: ARWU, THE and QS. http://www.statsilk.com/maps/where-are-
worlds-top-universities-interactive-maps-comparing-three-rankings-arwu-the-qs
(accessed 08.15.14.).
Zuckerman, H., 1992. The proliferation of prizes: Nobel complements and Nobel
surrogates in the reward system of science. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13.