This study explores the patterns of exchange of research knowledge among Education Research, Cognitive Science, and what we call “Border Fields.” We analyze a set of 32,121 articles from 177 selected journals, drawn from five sample years between 1994 and 2014. We profile the references that those articles cite, and the papers that cite them. We characterize connections among the fields in sources indexed by Web of Science (WoS) (e.g., peer-reviewed journal articles and proceedings), and connections in sources that are not (e.g., conference talks, chapters, books, and reports). We note five findings—first, over time the percentage of Education Research papers that extensively cite Cognitive Science has increased, but the reverse is not true. Second, a high percentage of Border Field papers extensively cite and are cited by the other fields. Border Field authors’ most cited papers overlap those most cited by Education Research and Cognitive Science. There are fewer commonalities between Educational research and Cognitive Science most cited papers. This is consistent with Border Fields being a bridge between fields. Third, over time the Border Fields have moved closer to Education Research than to Cognitive Science, and their publications increasingly cite, and are cited by, other Border Field publications. Fourth, Education Research is especially strongly represented in the literature published outside those WoS-indexed publications. Fifth, the rough patterns observed among these three fields when using a more restricted dataset drawn from the WoS are similar to those observed with the dataset lying outside the WoS, but Education Research shows a far heavier influence than would be indicated by looking at WoS records alone.
Education Research Cognitive Science Border Fields Bibliometrics Citation analysis Interdisciplinary research Cross-disciplinary knowledge diffusion
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This work was supported by a grant from the US National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources (DRL-1348765) to Search Technology Inc. While serving at the National Science Foundation, G.S. was supported by the IR/D program. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2009). Research collaboration and productivity: Is there correlation? Higher Education,57(2), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2002). Spanning seven orders of magnitude: A challenge for cognitive modeling. Cognitive Science,26(1), 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition,50(1–3), 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordons, M., & Barrigon, S. (1992). Bibliometric analysis of publications of Spanish pharmacologists in the SCI (1984–89).2. Contribution to subfields other than pharmacology and pharmacy (ISI). Scientometrics,25(3), 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology,110(2), 349–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, S., Solomon, G., Youtie, J., & Porter, A. L. (2016). The credibility of policy reporting across learning disciplines: A case study of ‘How People Learn’. In American Evaluation Association meeting, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Chen, C. (2003). Mapping scientific frontiers: The quest for knowledge visualization. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H., Evans, R., & Gorman, M. (2007). Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 38(4), 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
Kirby, J. A., Hoadley, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2005). Instructional systems design and the learning sciences: A citation analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development,53, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,60(3), 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosmuetzky, A., & Kruecken, G. (2014). Growth or steady state? A bibliometric focus on international comparative higher Education Research. Higher Education,67(4), 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI Subject Categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,60(2), 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., & Heberger, A. E. (2008). How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation,17(4), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, A. L., Schoeneck, D. J., Roessner, D., & Garner, J. (2010). Practical research proposal and publication profiling. Research Evaluation,19(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, A. L., Schoeneck, D. J., Solomon, G., Lakhani, H., & Dietz, J. (2013). Measuring and mapping interdisciplinarity: Research & evaluation on education in science & engineering (“REESE”) and STEM. In American Education Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Roessner, D., Porter, A. L., Nersessian, N. J., & Carley, S. (2013). Validating indicators of interdisciplinarity: Linking bibliometric measures to studies of engineering research labs. Scientometrics,94(2), 439–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, E. K., & Graversen, E. K. (2018). Persistent factors facilitating excellence in research environments. Higher Education,75(2), 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunn, C. D., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (1998). The growth of multidisciplinarity in the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science,22(1), 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, H., & Griffith, B. C. (1974). Structure of scientific literatures: 1. Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4(1), 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, G. E. A., et al. (2014). Who influences whom: The effects of disciplinary background and affiliation on the diffusion of knowledge in the REESE program. In Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Steinhardt, I., Schneijderberg, C., Gotze, N., Baumann, J., & Krucken, G. (2017). Mapping the quality assurance of teaching and learning in higher education: The emergence of a specialty? Higher Education,74(2), 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of The Royal Society,4(15), 707–719.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. (2002). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xian, H., & Madhavan, K. (2014). Anatomy of scholarly collaboration in engineering education: A big-data bibliometric analysis. Journal of Engineering Education,103(3), 486–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youtie, J., Melkers, J., & Kay, L. (2013). Bibliographic coupling and network analysis to assess knowledge coalescence in a research center environment. Research Evaluation,22(3), 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youtie, J., Solomon, G. E., Carley, S., Kwon, S., & Porter, A. L. (2017). Crossing borders: A citation analysis of connections between cognitive science and educational research… and the fields in between. Research Evaluation,26(3), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawacki-Richter, O., Anderson, T., & Tuncay, N. (2010). The growing impact of open access distance education journals: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of E-learning & Distance Education. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/661.