Philip Lawson
- History top 5%
- Scottish History and National Identity 5
- European Political History Analysis 1
- Anthropology top 10%
- Museology top 10%
- Economics and Econometrics top 10%
- Historical Economic and Social Studies 8
-
- Historical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis 1
-
- Australian History and Society 6
- Canadian Identity and History 3
-
- American Constitutional Law and Politics 4
- Political Theory and Influence 1
- Co-authors
- Jim PhillipsBruce P. LenmanReed Browning
- Cited by
- HistoryAnthropologyMuseology
- Journals
- The American Historical Review (1 paper)The William and Mary Quarterly (1 paper)The Historical Journal (3 papers)
- Partner nations
- CanadaUnited KingdomUnited States
In The Last Decade
Philip Lawson
17 papers receiving 124 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 41
- History 43
- Anthropology 37
- Museology 11
- Economics and Econometrics 79
- History and Philosophy of Science 10
Countries citing papers authored by Philip Lawson
This map shows the geographic impact of Philip Lawson'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 Philip Lawson with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Philip Lawson more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Philip Lawson
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Philip Lawson. 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 Philip Lawson. The network helps show where Philip Lawson may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network
The 3 scholars most cited alongside Philip Lawson, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.
All Works
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2014 | 6 | |
| 2 | A taste for empire and glory : studies in British overseas expansion, 1660-1800 | 1997 | 6 |
| 3 | Parliament and the Atlantic Empire | 1995 | 4 |
| 4 | 1995 | 1 | |
| 5 | 1994 | 40 | |
| 6 | 1992 | 49 | |
| 7 | 1991 | 2 | |
| 8 | Lord Bute: Essays in Reinterpretation | 1990 | 1 |
| 9 | 1990 | 1 | |
| 10 | 1988 | 1 | |
| 11 | 1986 | 5 | |
| 12 | 1986 | 1 | |
| 13 | 1985 | 7 | |
| 14 | 1985 | 4 | |
| 15 | 1984 | 33 | |
| 16 | 1983 | 12 | |
| 17 | 1982 | 7 | |
| 18 | 1980 | 1 | |
| 19 | 1980 | 0 |
About Philip Lawson
Philip Lawson is a scholar working on History, Economics and Econometrics and History and Philosophy of Science, having authored 19 papers that have together received 181 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Historical Economic and Social Studies (8 papers), Australian History and Society (6 papers), Scottish History and National Identity (5 papers), American Constitutional Law and Politics (4 papers), Canadian Identity and History (3 papers), Political Theory and Influence (1 paper), European Political History Analysis (1 paper) and Historical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in History (43 citations), Anthropology (37 citations) and Museology (11 citations). Philip Lawson has collaborated with scholars based in Canada, United Kingdom and United States. Frequent co-authors include Jim Phillips, Bruce P. Lenman and Reed Browning. Their work appears in journals such as The American Historical Review, The William and Mary Quarterly and The Historical Journal.
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.