Bibliometric Analysis of the Research on (in)equality of Opportunities in Education

Mücella Savaş Yalçın; Didem Koşar

doi:10.30703/cije.822317

TR EN

Eğitimde Fırsat Eşit(siz)liği ile ilgili Araştırmaların Bibliyometrik Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, eğitimde fırsat eşit(siz)liği ile ilgili yayınların zaman içindeki gelişiminin sistematik olarak incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. 1974-2020 yılları arasındaki yayınların zaman içindeki değişimini görmek için Web of Science veritabanından elde edilen meta veriler bibliyometrik yöntemlerle incelenmiştir. Bibliyografik verileri işlemek için popüler görselleştirme aracı olan VOSviewer kullanılmıştır. Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanında yer alan 505 makale incelemeye alınıp, yıllara göre yayın ve atıf sayılarının dağılımının yanı sıra en çok atıf alan makaleler, en etkili yayınlar ve yazarlar belirlenmiştir. Sahadaki işbirliği ağının görsel bir haritasını oluşturmak için ortak yazarlık analizi yapılarak yazarlar, ülkeler ve kurumlar arasındaki işbirlikleri belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Ayrıca alanın entelektüel yapısını ortaya çıkarmak için ortak atıf analizi uygulanarak baskın yazar ve yayınlar belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, eğitimde fırsat eşit(siz)liği ile ilgili yayın ve atıf sayısı yıllar içerisinde önemli ölçüde artmıştır. Ancak bu alanda yazarlar, kurumlar ve ülkeler arasındaki ilişki zayıf görünmektedir. Birçok yazar birbirinden bağımsız olarak çalışmış ve kurumlar arasındaki işbirliği yazar işbirliğine bağlı olarak çok zayıf olmakta, işbirliği yapan kurumların çoğu ABD’de sınırları içerisinde kalmaktadır. Ülkeler çok az işbirliği içerisinde olup, çoğu coğrafi konum bakımından birbirinden farklı yerlerdedir. Alanın yapısına bakıldığında, ortak atıf yapılan yazar ve çalışmalar eğitimde fırsat eşitliğiyle ilgili en temel referans kaynaklardır. Bu araştırmanın sonucunda, eğitimde fırsat eşit(siz)liği ile ilgili araştırmaların çoğunun bağımsız yürütüldüğü ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu durum alanda yapılacak diğer araştırmaların daha kapsamlı ve işbirliği içerisinde yapılmasını gözler önüne sermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bibliometric Analysis of the Research on (in)equality of Opportunities in Education

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to systematically examine the development of publications on (in)equality of opportunity in education, over time. The metadata obtained from the Web of Science database was analyzed using bibliometric methods in order to see the change of publications between 1974 and 2020 over time. VOSviewer is used as popular visualization tools to process bibliographic data. 505 articles in the Web of Science (WoS) database were examined and the most cited articles, the most influential publications, and authors were determined, in addition to the distribution of the number of publications and citations by years. Co-authorship analysis was carried out to establish a visual map of the cooperation network in the field, and collaborations between authors, countries, and institutions were tried to be determined. In addition, in order to reveal the intellectual structure of the field, co-citation analysis was applied and the dominant writers and publications were tried to be determined. According to the results obtained, the number of publications and citations on (in)equality of opportunity in education has increased significantly over the years. However, the relationship between the authors, institutions, and countries appears to be weak in the field. Cooperation between authors and institutions is very weak, and most of the collaborating institutions are located in the USA. As a result of this research, since the researches in the field are conducted independently, it reveals that the publications about the (in)equality of opportunity in education will be made more comprehensive and in cooperation in the future.

Keywords

References

Acedo, F. J. Barroso, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). The resource-based theory: Dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 621-636. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.532
Anderson, E. (2007). Fair opportunity in education: A democratic equality perspective. Ethics, 17(4), 595-622. https://doi.org/10.1086/518806
Arneson, R. (2009). Equality of Opportunity. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2015 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab.
Avelar, A. B. A., da Silva-Oliveira, K. D., & da Silva Pereira, R. (2019). Education for advancing the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals: A systematic approach. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(3), 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100322
Bellis, N. D. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to Cybermetrics. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
Bol, T., & Van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2013). Educational systems and the trade-off between labor market allocation and equality of educational opportunity. Comparative Education Review, 57(2), 285-308. https://doi.org/10.1086/669122
Boliver, V. (2011). Expansion, differentiation, and the persistence of social class inequalities in British higher education. Higher education, 61(3), 229-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9374-y
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, culture and society. London: Sage.

Borman, G., & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman’s equality of educational opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1201-1246.
Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality: Changing prospects in western society. New York: John Wiley
Breen, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997). Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and society, 9(3), 275-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/104346397009003002
Carreño, I. D. V. G. (2020). e-Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC), 13(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v13i1.12341
Carrington, B., & Skelton, C. (2003). Re-thinking'role models': equal opportunities in teacher recruitment in England and Wales. Journal of Education policy, 18(3), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930305573
Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.004
Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). Effects of resources, inequality, and privilege bias on achievement: Country, school, and student level analyses. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 575-603. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042004575
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., & Weinfeld, F. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity study. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Coleman, J. S. (1968). Equality of educational opportunity. Integrated Education, 6(5), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020486680060504
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools 1990 Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Cubero, M., Santamaría, A., Rebollo, M. Á., Cubero, R., García, R., & Vega, L. (2015). Teachers negotiating discourses of gender (in) equality: the case of equal opportunities reform in Andalusia. Gender and Education, 27(6), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1083947
Doleck, T., & Lajoie, S. (2018). Social networking and academic performance: A review. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1): 435-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9612-3
Dawson, W. (2010). Private tutoring and mass schooling in East Asia: Reflections of inequality in Japan, South Korea, and Cambodia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1): 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9058-4
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Did teachers' verbal ability and race matter in the 1960s? Coleman revisited. Economics of Education Review, 14(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(94)90019-1
Enders, J. (2002). Serving many masters: The PhD on the labour market, the everlasting need of inequality, and the premature death of Humboldt. Higher education, 44(3), 493-517. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019850524330
Feehan, P. E., Gragg II, W. L., Havener, W. M., & Kester, D. D. (1987). Library and information science research: An analysis of the 1984 journal literature. Library & Information Science Research, 9(3), 173-185.
Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. (2006). Equality of educational opportunity: A 40 year perspective. In R. Teese, S. Lamb, & M. Duru-Bellats (Eds.), Education and equity. Vol. 1: International perspectives on theory and policy (Chapter 1). New York, NY: Springer Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5916-2_2
Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. J., & Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, choice, and equity in education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Griffith, B.C., Small, H.G., Stonehill, J.A. & Dey, S. (1974). The structure of scientific literatures II: Toward a macro- and microstructure for science. Science Studies, 4, 339-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277400400402
Hallinger, P. (2019). Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management in Africa, 1960–2018. School Leadership & Management, 39(5), 537-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1545117
Jencks, C. (1988). Whom must we treat equally for educational opportunity to be equal?. Ethics, 98(3), 518-533. https://doi.org/10.1086/292969
Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (1972). On the value of equality of educational opportunity as a guide to public policy. On equality of educational opportunity, 116-145.
Hernández-Torrano, D., & Ibrayeva, L. (2020). Creativity and education: A bibliometric mapping of the research literature (1975–2019). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100625
Huang, C., Yang, C., Wang, S., Wu, W., Su, J., & Liang, C. (2019). Evolution of topics in education research: a systematic review using bibliometric analysis. Educational Review,1-17.
Kovačević, J., & Hallinger, P. (2019). Finding Europe’s niche: science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management in Europe, 1960–2018. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1692875
Martínez, M. A., Cobo, M. J., Herrera, M., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015). Analyzing the scientific evolution of social work using science mapping. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(2), 257-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514522101
McMahon, W. W. (2000). Education and development: Measuring the social benefits. London: Oxford Universty Press.
Mickelson, R. A. (2001). Subverting Swann: First-and second-generation segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 215-252. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002215
Mihai, M., Titan, E. & Manea, D. (2015). Education and poverty. Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 855-860. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01532-4
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 RESULTS (VOLUME I): EXCELLENCE AND EQUITY IN EDUCATION, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2018). Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
Ozdemir, N. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of research on principal leadership and student achievement. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(7), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v6i7.4512
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peragine, V. & Ferreira, F. (2015). Equality of opportunity: Theory and evidence. World Bank Policy Research Paper, 7217. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-7217
Piezunka, H. (2011). Technological platforms: An assessment of the primary types of technological platforms their strategic issues and their linkages to organizational theory. Betriebswirtschaft, 61, 179–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-011-0078-x
Raftery, A. E., & Hout, M. (1993). Maximally maintained inequality: Expansion, reform, and opportunity in Irish education, 1921-75. Sociology of education, 41-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112784
Rebollo, A., Garcia, R., Barragan, R., Buzon, O., & Ruiz-Pinto, E. (2012). Technologıes for coeducatıon and equalıty: teachers assessment of an educatıonal web tool. Educacion XX1, 15(1), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.15.1.151
Rebollo Catalan, M. A., Piedra de la Cuadra, J., Sala, A., Sabuco Canto, A., Saavedra Macias, J., & Bascon Diaz, M. (2012). Gender Equity in Education: Analysis and Description of Best Educational Practices. Revista de educacion, (358), 129-152.
Roemer, J. E., & Trannoy, A. (2015). Equality of opportunity. In Handbook of income distribution (Vol. 2, pp. 217-300). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59428-0.00005-9
Satz, D. (2007). Equality, adequacy, and education for citizenship. Ethics, 117(4), 623-648. https://doi.org/10.1086/518805
Shavit, Y., & Blossfeld, H. P. (1993). Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries. Social Inequality Series. Boulder: Westview Press.
Stopar, K., & Bartol, T. (2019). Digital competences, computer skills and information literacy in secondary education: mapping and visualization of trends and concepts. Scientometric, 118(2): 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2990-5
Tang, K. Y., Tsai, C. C., & Lin, T. C. (2014). Contemporary intellectual structure of CSCL research (2006–2013): A co-citation network analysis with an education focus. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 335-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9196-5
Ünal, L. I. & Özsoy, S. (1999). Modern Türkiye’nin Sisyphos miti: Eğitimde fırsat eşitliği. F. Gök (Ed.), 75.Yılda Eğitim (ss. 39-72). İstanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı Bilanço’98 Yayın Dizisi.
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring scholarly impact (pp. 285-320). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., Rogan, R., & Gurney, T. (2019). Manufacturing an illusory consensus? A bibliometric analysis of the international debate on education privatisation. International Journal of Educational Development, 64, 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.12.011
Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., ... & Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of informetrics, 5(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004
Woessmann, L. (2004). How equal are educational opportunities? Family background and student achievement in Europe and the US. (March 2004). CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1162. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=528209
Yalçın, H., & Yayla, K. (2016). Scientometric Analysis of the Researches About Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Scholarly Communication. Education & Science, 41(188). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6746
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

-

Journal Section

Review

Authors

Mücella Savaş Yalçın ^*
0000-0002-0226-999X
Türkiye

Didem Koşar
0000-0003-4959-1094
Türkiye

Publication Date

September 26, 2021

Submission Date

November 6, 2020

Acceptance Date

June 14, 2021

Published in Issue

Year 2021 Volume: 10 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.822317

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA69KL59WR

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Savaş Yalçın, M., & Koşar, D. (2021). Bibliometric Analysis of the Research on (in)equality of Opportunities in Education. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 10(3), 1194-1213. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.822317