Mark Featherstone

44 papers receiving 205 citations

Peers

Mark Featherstone
Comparison fields: 5 of 70
  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts 25
  • Philosophy 48
  • Literature and Literary Theory 47
  • Cultural Studies 33
  • Sociology and Political Science 142
Replace J Benedict with:
J Benedict India
David Trend United States
Robin van den Akker Netherlands
Mikhail Epstein United States
Hakim Bey
Gilbert B. Rodman United States
Timotheus Vermeulen Netherlands
Nicholas Thoburn United Kingdom
Bolette Blaagaard Denmark
Nina Power United Kingdom
Mark Featherstone relative to J Benedict India J Benedict's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×3.3×
J Benedict · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Mark Featherstone

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Mark Featherstone's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Mark Featherstone with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Mark Featherstone more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Mark Featherstone

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Mark Featherstone. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Mark Featherstone. The network helps show where Mark Featherstone may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 6 scholars most cited alongside Mark Featherstone, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Mark Featherstone Line = papers co-authored together Mark Featherstone links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 52 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings
1984105
2 200530
3 201720
4 201015
5
Planet Utopia: Utopia, Dystopia, and Globalisation
201711
6 201610
7 20199
8 20009
9
Tocqueville's Virus: Utopia and Dystopia in Western Social and Political Thought
20079
10 20136
11 20175
12 20214
13 20084
14 20104
15 20084
16 20163
17 20113
18 20153
19 20163
20 20183

About Mark Featherstone

Mark Featherstone is a scholar working on Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science, Political Science and International Relations, Philosophy and Computer Science Applications, having authored 52 papers that have together received 300 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Psychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Politics (9 papers), Digital Media and Philosophy (8 papers), Weber, Simmel, Sociological Theory (3 papers), Philosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism (3 papers), Gothic Literature and Media Analysis (2 papers), Digital Education and Society (2 papers), Cinema and Media Studies (2 papers) and Walter Benjamin Studies Compilation (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Visual Arts and Performing Arts (25 citations), Philosophy (48 citations), Literature and Literary Theory (47 citations), Cultural Studies (33 citations) and Sociology and Political Science (142 citations). Mark Featherstone has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include David Frisby, Elizabeth Poole, Douglas Kellner, Malcolm Miles, John Armitage and Ryan Bishop. Their work appears in journals such as Cultural Politics an International Journal, Journal for Cultural Research, The Review of Education Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, Educational Philosophy and Theory and International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact