مطالعات کتابداری و علم اطلاعات

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

اشتراک نشریه

شرایط و ضوابط ارسال مقاله

فرم ها

راهنمای تنظیم مقاله

داوران

ارزیابی پژوهش در حوزه مطالعات آموزش از راه دور با استفاده از مدل سرمایه علمی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه آموزش از راه دور، دانشکده علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

2 گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف: هدف این پژوهش ارزیابی پژوهش‌های مرتبط با حوزه آموزش از راه دور نمایه شده در پایگاه وب آو ساینس با استفاده از مدل سرمایه علمی می‌باشد.
روش: این پژوهش از نوع مطالعات کاربردی علم سنجی است و با استفاده از روش تحلیل شبکه‌ای انجام گرفته است. همچنین باتوجه به بررسی رابطه بین متغیرها این تحقیق از نوع همبستگی به شمار می‌رود. جامعه پژوهش مدارکی است که در حوزه مطالعات آموزش از راه دور در پایگاه اطلاعاتی وب آو ساینس در بازه زمانی 1985 تا 2016 نمایه شده‌اند و تعداد آن 31607 رکورد می‌باشد.
یافته‌ها: نتایج بررسی نشان داد نفوذ اجتماعی بر نفوذ اندیشه‌ای و انتشاراتی تأثیر مثبت و معناداری دارد و همچنین بین نفوذ انتشاراتی ونفوذ اندیشه‌ای نیز رابطه مثبت و معنادار وجود دارد.
نتیجه گیری: نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که پژوهشگرانی که تعاملات اجتماعی قوی‌تری دارند بهتر خواهند توانست با سایر پژوهشگران مشارکت نموده و بر کیفیت آثار بیفزایند؛ در نتیجه از نظر هم‌تألیفی و شاخص‌های آن در وضعیت بهتری قرار دارند. همچنین پژوهشگرانی که نفوذ اندیشه‌ای بالاتری دارند از نفوذ انتشاراتی بیشتری برخوردار هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of research in the field of distance education using scholarly capital model

نویسندگان [English]

  • somaieh rajabzadeh 1
  • mahmood ekrami 1
  • Faramarz soheili 2
  • Hamid ahmadi 1

1 Department of Education and Psychology, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Information Science, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Background and Objectives: The researchers and their researches need to be evaluated to recognize each one's strengths and weaknesses. Then, it is possible to invest and make scientific policies on long term and short-term goals in this field. So far, several indices have been presented for evaluating researchers, each of which merely emphasizes a particular aspect of evaluation, and each has its own deficiencies. Recently, a model has been proposed by Cuellar et al. (2016) titled "Scholarly capital model", which examines the various aspects of the scholarly activities of a researcher. They define the model of scholarly influence as "the ability of a researcher to include his thoughts in the works of other researchers" or "the extent to which a researcher influences his own research field". The purpose of this research was to evaluate the researches in the field of distance education indexed on the WOS database using the scholarly capital model.
Methodology: The present study is an applied study that has been conducted by social network analysis. The research population consists all the documents published in the field of distance education. The results of search strategy retrieved 31607 records. The co-authorship symmetric matrices was extracted. Subsequently, using the UCINET software, the centrality indices were calculated. After analyzing all the indices using Amos and Lisrel software, we examined and tested the research hypotheses and fitted the model.
Findings: The results indicate the direct and significant effect of the social influence on the ideational influence, and the hypothesis is confirmed according to the path coefficient of 0.95 and the t-statistic of 45.9 at the significance level of 0.05. In the research model, K2 has degrees of freedom (df) of 3.97, which is less than 5. Also, the root mean square error of the approximation is 0.032 and less than 0.08. Given that the incremental growth index, normed fit index, non-normed fit index and comparative fit index are higher than 0.90, then the model shows acceptable fit and is therefore confirmed. The results also show the direct and inevitable significant effect of the social influence on the venue influence, and the hypothesis is confirmed with a path coefficient of 0.70 and a T-value of 27.12 at the 0.05 level. In the research model, the K2 value has df of 92.4 and less than 5. Also, the root mean square error of the approximation was 0.016 and less than 0.08. Given that the incremental fitness index, normed fit index, non-normed fit index, and comparative fit index are all higher than 0.90, then the model is acceptable and validated. The results of the third hypothesis of the research and the structural relationships between the variables of the research model - using structural equation modeling - indicate the direct and inevitable significant effect of the venue influence on the ideational influence, with a path coefficient of 0.84 and a T-value of 5.93 at the 0.05 level (because (t) is outside the range of 1.96 to -1.96).  In the research model, the K2 value is 0.063 and less than 5. Also, the root mean square error of the approximation is 0.033, which is less than 0.08. Given that the incremental growth index, normed fit index, non-normed fit index, and comparative fit index are more than 0.90, then the model shows an acceptable fit.
Discussion:  The results of data analysis shows that there is a significant relationship between the variables of this research. This relationship can be due to the fact that researchers with stronger social interactions can contribute better than other researchers to the field and may increase the quality of the works. Also, they are in a better position in terms of co-authorship and its indices. Furthermore, social influence has a positive and significant effect on the ideational influence. The existence of such a relationship can be explained by the fact that researchers who have stronger social interactions can work better with other researchers and may consequently increase the quality of the works; hence, they are in a better position in terms of co-authorship and its indices. The results also show that there is a significant relationship between social influence and venue influence. In other words, higher researchers with higher social influences have better venue influences. The confirmation of the relationship between the social influence and the venue influence is also largely justifiable, since a significant portion of the validity of each journal comes from scholars who send their research papers to those journals, and if the quality of these studies is rich and appropriate, they absorb citations and thus increase the credibility of the journal

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Scholarly capital model
  • Social Influence
  • Venue Influence
  • Ideational Influence
  • Research Evaluation
مراجع
Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594-607.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S.E., & Daniel, H.D. (2011). A multilevel metaanalysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 346–359.
Chiang, J. K., Kuo, C. W., & Yang, Y. H. (2010). A bibliometric study of e-learning literature on SSCI database. In International conference on technologies for E-learning and digital entertainment (pp. 145-155). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
 Chin, W.W. (2003). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
Cuellar, M. J., Vidgen, R., Takeda, H., & Truex, D. (2016). Ideational influence, connectedness, and venue representation: Making an assessment of scholarly capital. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(1), 1–28.
Davies, R. S., Howell, S. L., & Petrie, J. A. (2010). A review of trends in distance education scholarship at research universities in North America, 1998-2007. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 42-56.
Egghe, L. (2005). Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics. Oxford (UK): Elsevier
Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215-239.
Hasanzadeh, p., Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A., soheili, F., Mousavi Chalak, A.  (2019). Co-authorship and the Relationship between Social Influence and the Extent of Effectiveness and Productivity of Researchers in Domain of Chronic Cardiovascular Failure. Journal of Scientometrics. (Forthcoming). (In Persian)
Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572.
 Khasseh, A. A. (2016). Knowledge Structure in Metric Studies: Analysis of Co-citations, Co-authorships, and Co-words of Records Using Network Analysis and Science Visualization. PhD Dissertation, Payame Noor University. (In Persian)
Leimu, R., &Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? AIBS Bulletin, 55(5), 438-443.
Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: a social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530.doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2013. 06. 012
Li, J., Wang, M.H., & Ho, Y.S. (2011). Trends in research on global climate change: A Science Citation Index Expanded-based analysis. Global and Planetary Change, 77(1), 13-20.
Mingers, J., Macri, F., & Petrovici, D. (2012). Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of Business and Management. Information Processing & Management, 48(2), 234‐241.
Morel, CM; Serruya, S. J.; Penna, G. O.; Guimares, R. (2009). Co-authorship network analysis: A powerful tool for strategic planning of research, development and capacity building programs on neglected diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 3:8, 1-7.
Mousavi Chalak, A., Sohieli, F., Khasseh, A. A. (2017). The relationship between social influence with productivity and performance in co-authorship social network of Quran and Hadith studies. Library and information science.    20(3), 50-74. (In Persian)
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641-720.
Price, D., & Gursey, S. (1976). Studies in scientometrics. 1. Transience and continuance in scientific authorship. In International Forum on Information and Documentation, 1(2). 17-24.
Rowe, F. (2014). What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 241-255.
Sadatmoosavi, A. (2015). Analyzing the structure of co-authorship social network of the researcher from the field of nuclear science and technology using egocentric and sociocentric approach. PhD dissertation. Islamic Azad University, science and research branch, Faculty of humanities. (In Persian)
Sasson, A. (2008). Exploring mediators: Effects of the composition of organizational affiliation on organization survival and mediator performance. Organization Science, 19(6), 891‐906.
Skinner, J. K. (2015). Bibliometric and social network analysis of doctoral research: Research trends in distance learning. Doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico.
Soheili, f (2012). The Analysis of Social Network Structure of Co-authorship in Scientific Output of Information Science Researchers for the Purpose of Recognition and Measurement of Co-authorship Relations, Interactions and Strategies in this Discipline. PhD Dissertation, Shahid Chamran university of Ahvaz. . (In Persian)
 Soheili, F., Hadi Sharif Moghaddam, H., Mousavi Chelak, A., Khasseh, A. A. (2016). An Evaluation of iMetric Studies through the Scholarly Influence Model. Iranian journal of information processing and management, 32(1).25-50. (In Persian)
Stewart, M., Smith, P., Barron, A. (2010). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Volume 11, Number 1.
Stringer, Michael J. (2009). A complex systems approach to bibliometrics. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.
Truex III, D. P., Cuellar, M. J., & Takeda, H. (2009). Assessing Scholarly Influence: Using the Hirsch Indices to Reframe the Discourse. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 10(7), 560--594.
 Truex, D.P., Cuellar, M.J., Takeda, H., & Vidgen, R. (2011). The Scholarly influence of Heinz Klein: Ideational and social measures of his impact on IS research and IS scholars. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(4), 422-439.
Tsai, C. W., Shen, P. D., & Chiang, Y. C. (2013). Research trends in meaningful learning research on e‐learning and online education environments: A review of studies published in SSCI‐indexed journals from 2003 to 2012. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6).68-79.
Wu, B., & Zhang, C. Y. (2013). Evaluation Research in E-Learning System. In Applied Mechanics and Materials (Vol. 333, pp. 2239-2242). Trans Tech Publications.
Ye, Q., Li, T., & Law, R. (2013). A co-authorship network analysis of tourism and hospitality research collaboration. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(1), 51-76.
Youtie, J., & Bozeman, B. (2016). Dueling co-authors: how collaborators create and sometimes solve contributorship conflicts. Minerva, 54(4), 375-397.
Zancanaro, A., Todesco, J. L., & Ramos, F. (2015). A Bibliometric Mapping of Open Educational Resources. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(1), 1-23.
مطالعات کتابداری و علم اطلاعات
دوره 12، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 31
خرداد 1399
صفحه 132-152
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار