Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose: This response cautions against narrowly interpreting Hallinger's bibliometric findings on the intellectual structure and impact of Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ). It highlights two main issues when using citations to measure influence. Response Argument: First, citations reflect a variety of motivations beyond acknowledging intellectual contribution, such as persuasion, allegiance-signaling, and preferential attachment. The sleeping beauty phenomenon and citation bias can further distort the interpretation of bibliometric findings. Second, setting thresholds for co-citation networks renders the periphery invisible; however, the periphery contains anomalies that could spur future paradigm shifts. Implications: The response urges embracing diverse views and nuanced interpretations to prevent perpetuating existing inequalities.

Keywords

intellectual structure bibliometrics network analysis citation bias Matthew effect power-law distribution

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

J. M.

(2013). Preferential attachment and the search for successful theories. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1086/674080

Allison

P. D.

(1980). Inequality and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 10(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631278001000203

Barabási

A. L.

Albert

(1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science (New York, N.Y.), 286(5439), 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509

Bates

R. J.

(1980). Educational administration, the sociology of science, and the management of knowledge. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x8001600204

Bates

R. J.

(2006). Educational administration and social justice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197906064676

Bornmann

Daniel

H. D.

(2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150

Cole

J. R.

(1968). Visibility and the structural bases of awareness of scientific research. American Sociological Review, 33(3), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/2091914

Dolmage

W. R.

(1992). The quest for understanding in educational administration: A habermasian perspective on the “griffiths-greenfield debate”. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/Revue de la Pensée Educative, 89–113. https://doi.org/10.11575/jet.v26i2.52261

Duyx

Urlings

M. J.

Swaen

G. M.

Bouter

L. M.

Zeegers

M. P.

(2017). Scientific citations favor positive results: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 88, 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002

10.

Einstein

Podolsky

Rosen

(1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777–780. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrev.47.777

11.

Elton

(2004). Goodhart’s law and performance indicators in higher education. Evaluation & Research in Education, 18(1–2), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790408668312

12.

Evans

J. A.

(2008). Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science (New York, N.Y.), 321(5887), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150473

13.

Fowler

Aksnes

(2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72(3), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1777-2

14.

Fuller

Young

Baker

B. D.

(2011). Do principal preparation programs influence student achievement through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An exploratory analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 173–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010378613

15.

Garfield

(1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science (New York, N.Y.), 122(3159), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108

16.

Garfield

(2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90

17.

Getzels

J. W.

(1977). Educational administration twenty years later, 1954–1974. In Cunningham

L. L.

Hack

W. G.

Nystrands

R. O.

(Eds.) Educational administration: The developing decades (pp. 3–24). Macmillan.

18.

Gilbert

G. N.

(1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277700700112

19.

Girvan

Newman

M. E.

(2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(12), 7821–7826. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122653799

20.

Hallinger

Other Authors. (2023). An empirical reflection on Educational Administration Quarterly’s distinctive contributions to the field, 1965–2020. Educational Administration Quarterly.

21.

Jannot

A. S.

Agoritsas

Gayet-Ageron

Perneger

T. V.

(2013). Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(3), 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.015

22.

Johnson

Oppenheim

(2007). How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? Journal of Documentation, 63(5), 609–637. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710827727

23.

Ferrara

Radicchi

Flammini

(2015). Defining and identifying sleeping beauties in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7426–7431. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424329112

24.

Kim

Adolph

West

J. D.

Stovel

(2020). The influence of changing marginals on measures of inequality in scholarly citations: Evidence of bias and a resampling correction. Sociological Science, 7, 314–341. https://doi.org/10.15195/v7.a13

25.

King

M. M.

Bergstrom

C. T.

Correll

S. J.

Jacquet

West

J. D.

(2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 3, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903

26.

Kosfeld

Heinrichs

Zak

P. J.

Fischbacher

Fehr

(2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03701

27.

Kuhn

T. S.

(2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

28.

Lakomski

(1987). Critical theory and educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 25(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009927

29.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A replication. School Leadership & Management, 20(4), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696963

30.

Leng

R. I.

(2020). The matter of facts: Skepticism, persuasion, and evidence in science. MIT Press.

31.

Lewin

(1943). Defining the ‘field at a given time’. Psychological Review, 50(3), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062738

32.

F. Y.

(2016). Distinguishing sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 108(2), 821–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1977-3

33.

Lutz

F. W.

(2000). Daniel E. Griffiths: He changed the entire profession. UCEA Review, XLI(3), 1–3.

34.

Maslow

A. H.

(1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

35.

Merton

R. K.

(1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science (New York, N.Y.), 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

36.

Merton

R. K.

(1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848

37.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. U.S. Government Printing Office.

38.

Pan

R. K.

Petersen

A. M.

Pammolli

Fortunato

(2018). The memory of science: Inflation, myopia, and the knowledge network. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 656–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.005

39.

Park

S. H.

(1999). The development of Richard Bates’s critical theory in educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(4), 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239910285598

40.

Petersen

A. M.

Fortunato

Pan

R. K.

Kaski

Penner

Rungi

Riccaboni

Stanley

H. E.

Pammolli

(2014). Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), 15316–15321. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323111111

41.

Price

D. D. S.

(1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270505

42.

Radicchi

Fortunato

Castellano

(2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(45), 17268–17272. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806977105

43.

Ritchie

(2020). Science fictions: How fraud, bias, negligence, and hype undermine the search for truth. Metropolitan Books.

44.

Rosenstock

Bruner

O’Connor

(2017). In epistemic networks, is less really more? Philosophy of Science, 84(2), 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1086/690717

45.

Sollas

W. J.

(1895). An experiment to illustrate the mode of flow of a viscous fluid. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 51(1–4), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.jgs.1895.051.01-04.28

46.

Spears

(1941). Can the line-and-staff principle unify instructional leadership? NASSP Bulletin, 25(98), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263654102509802

47.

Van Raan

A. F.

(2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:scie.0000018543.82441.f1

48.

Waite

(2002). The “paradigm wars” in educational administration: An attempt at transcendence. International Studies in Educational Administration, 30(1), 66–81.

49.

Wallace

M. L.

Larivière

Gingras

(2012). A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices. PloS one, 7(3), e33339. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033339

50.

Wang

Song

Barabási

A. L.

(2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science (New York, N.Y.), 342(6154), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237825

51.

Wang

(2019). Pulling at your heartstrings: Examining four leadership approaches from the neuroscience perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(2), 328–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x18799471

52.

West

J. D.

Bergstrom

C. T.

(2021). Misinformation in and about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912444117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912444117

53.

Witziers

Bosker

R. J.

Krüger

M. L.

(2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x03253411

54.

Wolfgang

Bart

Balázs

(2004). A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication. Scientometrics, 59(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:scie.0000013299.38210.74

55.

Zachary

W. W.

(1977). An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups. Journal of Anthropological Research, 33(4), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.33.4.3629752

56.

Zollman

K. J.

(2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-009-9194-6

Where Does the Future of an Intellectual Structure of the EAQ Corpus Lie? A Response to Hallinger et al.'s Empirical Reflection

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References