ارزیابی و تحلیل شبکه‌های اجتماعی دانشگاهی: راهبرد پویای پژوهشی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش آموخته دکتری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 استاد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

انجام پژوهش برخوردار از سهم نظری، بررسی پیشینه نظری بدون سوگیری و شناسایی حوزه‌­های نوظهور پژوهشی از مهمترین دغدغه‌­های هر پژوهشگری در انجام پژوهش‌­های دانشگاهی است. یکی از راهبردهای موجود برای رفع این مشکلات رویکرد تحلیل شبکه‌­های اجتماعی دانشگاهی است. این شبکه‌­ها با در نظر گرفتن حوزه­‌های پژوهشی با کارکرد ساختارهای اجتماعی، بر اساس معیارهای کتاب‌سنجی مانند هم‌استنادی، استناد، جفت‌­سازی کتاب‌شناختی، هم‌رخدادی‌واژگان و هم‌تالیفی ترسیم شده که هر کدام کاربردهای خاص خود را داشته و برای پاسخ به سوالات خاصی مورد استفاده قرار می­‌گیرند. هدف از پژوهش حاضر نحوۀ ارزیابی و تحلیل شبکه­‌های اجتماعی و کاربردهای آن در پژوهش‌های حوزه مدیریت و کسب‌وکار است. بدین‎سان، معیارهای کتاب‌­سنجی مورد استفاده در ترسیم این شبکه­‌ها مورد بررسی قرار خواهد گرفت. همچنین ارزیابی می­‌شود که هر کدام از شبکه‌­های ترسیم شده برای پاسخ به چه سوالاتی مناسب است. به منظور انجام چنین تحلیل‌هایی یک فرایند 5 مرحله‌ای معرفی شده و سپس مراحل گام به گام اجرای یک تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی با جزئیات کامل مورد بررسی قرار خواهد گرفت. همچنین مهمترین پایگاه‌­های داده مورد استفاده برای گردآوری فراداده‌­های لازم معرفی شده و برخی ابزارهای موجود به منظور تحلیل و مصورسازی شبکه‌­های اجتماعی دانشگاهی به اختصار مورد بررسی قرار می­‌گیرد. به منظور آشنایی هرچه بیشتر خوانندگان با این رویکرد، حوزه پژوهشی نوآوری راهبردی مورد بررسی و تحلیل قرار خواهد و کاربردهای رویکرد تحلیل شبکه‌های اجتماعی به صورت عملی بیان می‌شود. نتایج نشان‌گر ظرفیت بالای حوزه نوآوری راهبردی برای ورود پژوهشگران بوده و موضوعات جدید در این حوزه نیز معرفی شده‌اند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Academic social networks evaluation and analysis: A strategy for goal-oriented research

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehran Badin Dahesh 1
  • Gholamali Tabarsa 2
  • Mostafa Zandiyeh 2
  • Mohammadreza Hamidizadeh 2
1 PhD Graduate, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

   Introduction: Conducting research with a theoretical contribution, reviewing the theoretical background without bias, and identifying emerging research areas are one of the most important concerns of every researcher in conducting academic research. The abundance of useless and scientifically worthless research in the country doubles the need to pay attention to these issues. One of the existing strategies to solve these problems is the approach of academic social networks analysis. Considering research areas as social structures, these networks are drawn based on bibliometric criteria such as co-citation, citation, bibliographic pairing, co-occurrence of vocabulary, and co-authorship, each of which has its uses and are used to answer special questions. In this article, the approach to social networks analysis will be introduced first, and then the bibliometric criteria used in drawing these networks will be examined. It is also stated that each of the drawn networks is suitable for answering what questions. Then, the step-by-step stages of implementing a social network analysis are introduced. Also, the most important databases used to collect the necessary meta-data are introduced and some existing tools to analyze and illustrate academic social networks are briefly reviewed. Examples of applications of this approach are also shown.
   Methodology: In order to conduct academic social network analysis, a 5-step process must be performed. In the first step, the research design should be determined. The analysis is done to answer what questions and what method is suitable to answer those questions. In the second step, it is necessary to collect bibliographic data. First, you have to choose the right database and then, by choosing the right search keywords in a specific time frame, search and collect the necessary metadata for network drawing and analysis. In the third step, the collected data should be analyzed. In this step, the appropriate bibliographic software should be selected and the data should be prepared for analysis. Illustration of the networks is done in the fourth step, in which the appropriate method and tool of the illustration should be determined by the researcher. In the final step, the drawn networks should be described and interpreted.
   Results and Discussion: Each of the networks drawn by metadata collected from scientific databases has a specific application. Citation networks are used to identify the most important and influential works, authors, and publications. Also, based on the citation networks drawn based on the timeline, it is possible to identify the development process of a research field, its theoretical foundation, and theoretical fields affecting the research field. Co-citation networks that are drawn based on the cited references of the selected documents provide the most relevant sources for research. Also, the clusters obtained from this analysis show the historical streams of the research field. The bibliographic coupling networks which are the reverse of co-citation examine the cited documents and the clusters obtained from them showing the contemporary streams of the research field under investigation. Co-authorship networks are a measure of cooperation between authors, institutions, publications, and countries. Word co-occurrence networks identify important themes in a domain, and as a content analysis technique, they are the only network that uses the actual content of documents. The output of the word co-occurrence network is a network of themes and shows the conceptual space of a field.
   Conclusion: Conducting targeted and useful research is one of the important issues faced by researchers and students, especially graduate students who have to conduct research in the form of a thesis or dissertation. From choosing new topics to reviewing literature and theoretical background in an appropriate way, all of them are problems that researchers have to overcome, and in this way, they need a clear strategy and roadmap. The social network analysis approach based on bibliographic criteria is one of the strategies proposed to help solve these problems. The analysis of academic social networks that are formed based on bibliographic criteria such as citation, co-citation, co-authorship, word co-occurrence, and bibliographic coupling, by adding an objective and quantitative accuracy, reduces the consequences of personal reviews and subjective biases of researchers and It helps to get a more comprehensive understanding of research areas. Each of these networks is suitable for answering specific questions. Using the approach of social network analysis can have a significant help in guiding researchers in conducting targeted research. The use of this method helps researchers, especially newcomers to a field, to get a better understanding of that field, get acquainted with important sources for study, and helps them determine their research position and advance research flows in a specific field. For this reason, getting familiar with this approach and using it is one of the topics that researchers and higher education institutions should pay attention to in order to reduce the amount of aimless and useless research.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Social network analysis
  • Bibliometrics analysis
  • Research strategy
  • Academic social network
  • Strategic innovation
  1. Badin Dahesh, M., Tabarsa, G., Zandieh, M., & Hamidizadeh, M. (2020). Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis. Technology in Society, 63, 101399. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2020.101399
  2. Baier-Fuentes, H., Merigó, J. M., Amorós, J. E., & Gaviria-Marín, M. (2019). International entrepreneurship: A Bibliometric Overview. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 385–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0487-y
  3. Ball, R., & Tunger, D. (2017). Science Indicators Revisited – Science Citation Index versus SCOPUS: A Bibliometric Comparison of Both Citation Databases. Information Services & Use, 26(4), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.3233/isu-2006-26404
  4. Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi : An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.010033
  5. Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (2011). Pajek Program for Analysis and Visualization of Large Networks.
  6. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(09). https://doi.org/10.1045/september2005-bauer
  7. Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. (2002). UCINET for Windows Software for Social Network Analysis.
  8. Calero Medina, C. M., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Seed Journal Citation Network Maps: A Method Based on Network Theory. Journal Ofthe American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1226–1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi
  9. Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From Translations to Problematic Networks: An Introduction to Co-word Analysis. In Social Science Information (Vol. 22, pp. 191–235). http://ssi.sagepub.com
  10. Ceretta, G. F., dos Reis, D. R., & da Rocha, A. C. (2016). Innovation and business Models: A Bibliometric Study of Scientific Production on Web of Science Database. Gestão & Produção, 23(2), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X1461-14
  11. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature chaomei. Journal of the american society for information science and technology, 57(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi
  12. Garfield, E. (1979). Is Citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375.
  13. Gomes, L. A. de V., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. (2018). Unpacking the Innovation Ecosystem Construct: Evolution, Gaps and Trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009
  14. Kalamaras, D. v. (2005). Social Network Visualizer 2.5 Manual. https://socnetv.org/docs/index.html
  15. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is Research Collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
  16. Kessler, M. M. (1963). An Experimental Study of Bibliographic Coupling Between Technical Papers. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 9(1), 49–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1963.1057800
  17. Kessler, M. M. (1965). Comparison of the Results of Bibliographic Coupling and Analytic Subject Indexing. American Documentation, 16(3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090160309
  18. Kong, X., Shi, Y., Yu, S., Liu, J., & Xia, F. (2019). Academic Social Networks: Modeling, Analysis, Mining and Applications. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2019.01.029
  19. Kostoff, R. N. (1993). Co-word Analysis. In Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice (pp. 63–78). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5182-6_4
  20. Hamidizadeh, Mohammad Reza(2015). System Dynamics, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University Pub..
  21. Leppink, J., & Pérez-Fuster, P. (2019). Social Networks as an Approach to Systematic review. Health Professions Education, 5(3), 218–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2018.09.002
  22. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. (1973). System of Document Connections Based on References. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Seriya 2-Informatsionnye Protsessy, 1973(6), 3–8. http://apps.isiknowledge.com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=19&SID=P1MjEahD7lCECCLHC9g&page=1&doc=1
  23. Martyn, J. (1964). Bibliographic Coupling. Journal of Documentation, 20(4), 236–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026404
  24. McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space: A Technical Overview. 41(6), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1305.1970.tb01681.x
  25. McCain, K. W. (1991). Mapping Economics Through the Journal Literature: An Experiment in Journal Cocitation Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(4), 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4<290::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-9
  26. Meetham, A. R. (1969). Encyclopaedia of Linguistics, Information, and Control. Pergamon Press.
  27. Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2016). Constructing Bibliometric Networks: A Comparison Between Full and Fractional Counting. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 1178–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.006
  28. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. W. (2009). How to Use Bibexcel for Various Types of Bibliometric Analysis. Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies A Festschrift for Olle Persson at His 60th Birthday.
  29. Pham-Duc, B., Tran, T., Huu Hoang, D., & Bao Do, C. (2022). Global scientific literature on human resource development: a bibliometric analysis using Scopus database. European Journal of Training and Development, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2022-0004
  30. Prichard, A. (1969). Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25.
  31. Schildt, H. (2004). SITKIS : Software for Bibliometric Data.
  32. Schmidt, F. (2008). Meta-analysis: A Constantly Evolving Research Integration Tool. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107303161
  33. Scott, J., & Stokman, F. N. (2015). Social Networks. In J. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd Editio, Vol. 22). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44374-4_32
  34. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the Scientific Literature : A New Measure of the Relationship Between Two Documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.4630240406/abstract%5CnD:%5CZotero_Data%5CZotero%5CProfiles%5C1sqw9v0j.default%5Czotero%5Cstorage%5CGCR7NPQA%5Cabstract.html
  35. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing Science by Citation Mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:9<799::AID-ASI9>3.0.CO;2-G
  36. Steketee, M., Miyaoka, A., & Spiegelman, M. (2015). Social Network Analysis. In J. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd Editio, Vol. 22). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10563-X
  37. Suominen, A., Seppänen, M., & Dedehayir, O. (2018). A Bibliometric Review on Innovation Systems and Ecosystems: A Research Agenda. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2017-0188
  38. Tagliacozzo, R. (1967). Citations and Citation Indexes: A Review. Methods of Information in Medicine, 6(3), 136–142.
  39. Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Limin Yao, J. L., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008). ArnetMiner: Extraction and Mining of Academic Social Networks Jie. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.
  40. Thomas, L. D. W., & Autio, E. (2012). Modeling the Ecosystem: A Meta-synthesis of Ecosystem and Related Literatures. DRUID Conference.
  41. Thomson Reuters. (2008). Whitepaper Using Bibliometrics: A guide to Evaluating Research Performance with Citation Data. In Thomson Reuters. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCN.0b013e31819ec9ac
  42. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  43. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text Mining and Visualization Using VOSviewer. http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2058
  44. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014a). CitNetExplorer: A New Software Tool for analyzing and Visualizing Citation Networks. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.07.006
  45. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014b). CitNetExplorer Manual. Leiden University.
  46. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014c). Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact (pp. 285–320). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
  47. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2019). VOSviewer Manual 1.6.11. Leiden University. http://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.5.4.pdf
  48. van Leeuwen, T. (2006). The Application of Bibliometric Analyses in the Evaluation of Social Science Research. Who Benefits from it, and why it is Still Feasible. Scientometrics, 66(1), 133–154.
  49. Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities. Basic and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, 97(5), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x
  50. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A Unified Approach to Mapping and Clustering of Bibliometric Networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
  51. Weinberg, B. H. (1974). Bibliographic Coupling: A Review. Information Storage and Retrieval, 10(5–6), 189–196. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020027174900588
  52. White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author Cocitation: A Literature Measure of Intellectual Structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320302
  53. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a Discipline: An Author Co-citation Analysis of Information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980401)49:4<327::AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-W
  54. Wu, Z., Wu, J., Khabsa, M., Williams, K., Chen, H. H., Huang, W., Tuarob, S., Choudhury, S. R., Ororbia, A., Mitra, P., & Giles, C. L. (2014). Towards Building a Scholarly Big Data Platform: Challenges, Lessons and Opportunities. IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2014.6970157
  55. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629