The definition of the field of educational technology has evolved over 50 years. New inventions and economic globalization increasingly facilitate people’s communication for exchange of ideas and collaboration. This work attempts to describe international research collaboration in educational technology for the past 50 years. This article intends to offer an objective and quantitative description through social network analysis. The structure and evolutionary model for the international collaboration network in educational technology is proposed. Economic and geographical factors related to collaboration are analyzed, and the relationship between the number of author origins of ^an article and the times cited of the article received is discussed.
AdamsJ. (2012) Collaborations: The rise of research networks. Nature490(7420): 335–336.
2.
Ahlgren, P., & Persson, O. (2012). Globalization of citations and collaboration: A study of twelve journals. In E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, & V. Lariviere (Eds.), Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 23--32). Montreal, Canada: Science-Metrix and OST.
3.
Ali-KhanS. E.RayM.McMahonD. S.ThorsteinsdóttirH. (2013) Sino-Canadian collaborations in stem cell research: A scientometric analysis. PLoS One8(2): e57176.
4.
AmabileT. M.PattersonC.MuellerJ.WojcikT.OdomirokP. W.MarshM.KramerS. J. (2001) Academic–practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal44(2): 418–431.
5.
BarabâsiA. L.JeongH.NédaZ.RavaszE.SchubertA.VicsekT. (2002) Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications311(3): 590–614.
6.
BonacichP. (2007) Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks29(4): 555–564.
7.
BorgattiS. P. (2005) Centrality and network flow. Social Networks27(1): 55–71.
8.
de Nooy et al., 2011 de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (structural analysis in the social sciences). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9.
de Solla Price, 1963 de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
10.
de Solla PriceD. J. (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science149: 510–515.
11.
Egghe & Rousseau, 1990 Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
12.
ElyD. P. (2008) Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the field. TechTrends52(1): 24–25.
13.
FalagasM. E.MichalopoulosA. S.BliziotisI. A.SoteriadesE. S. (2006) A bibliometric analysis by geographic area of published research in several biomedical fields, 1995–2003. Canadian Medical Association Journal175(11): 1389–1390.
14.
FalkenheimJ.KannankuttyN. (2012) International collaborations of scientists and engineers in the United States. NSF InfoBrief12(323): 1–7.
15.
FiggW. D.DunnL.LiewehrD. J.SteinbergS. M.ThurmanP. W.BarrettJ. C.BirkinshawJ. (2006) Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy26(6): 759–767.
16.
FrameJ. D.CarpenterM. P. (1979) International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science9(4): 481–497.
17.
FreemanL. C. (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry40: 35–41.
18.
FreemanL. C. (1979) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks1: 215–239.
19.
FuH. Z.HoY. S. (2012) Bibliometric analysis of thermodynamic research: A science citation index expanded-based analysis. In: Morales-RodriguezR. (ed.) Thermodynamics—fundamentals and its application in science, Croatia: InTech, pp. 519–524.
20.
FuH. Z.HoY. S.SuiY. M.LiZ. S. (2010) A bibliometric analysis of solid waste research during the period 1993–2008. Waste Management30(12): 2410–2417.
21.
GlänzelW. (2001) National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics51(1): 69–115.
22.
GlänzelW.De LangeC. (2002) A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics54(1): 75–89.
23.
GlänzelW.JanssensF.ThisjsB. (2009) A comparative analysis of publication activity and citation impact based on the core literature in bioinformatics. Scientometrics79(1): 109–129.
24.
GrossmanJ. W. (2002) The evolution of the mathematical research collaboration graph. Congressus Numerantium158: 201–212.
25.
HuC.RacherlaP. (2008) Visual representation of knowledge networks: A social network analysis of hospitality research domain. International Journal of Hospitality Management27(2): 302–312.
26.
JanuszewskiA.MolendaM. (2007) Educational technology: A definition with commentary, New York: Routledge.
27.
JassawallaA. R.SashittalH. C. (1998) An examination of collaboration in high-technology new product development processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management15(3): 237–254.
28.
KatzJ. S.MartinB. R. (1997) What is research collaboration?Research Policy26(1): 1–18.
29.
KinneyA. L. (2007) National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences104(46): 17943–17947.
30.
LuukkonenT.PerssonO.SivertsenG. (1992) Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology & Human Values17(1): 101–126.
31.
LeydesdorffL.WagnerC. S. (2008) International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics2(4): 317–325.
32.
MelinG.PerssonO. (1996) Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics36(3): 363–377.
33.
MilojevićS. (2012) How are academic age, productivity and collaboration related to citing behavior of researchers?PloS One7(11): e49176.
34.
National Science Foundation. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
35.
NederhofA. J.Van RaanA. F. (1993) A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review. Research Policy22(4): 353–368.
36.
NewmanM. E. (2000) Models of the small world. Journal of Statistical Physics101(3–4): 819–841.
37.
NewmanM. E. (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences98(2): 404–409.
38.
PerssonO.GlänzelW.DanellR. (2004) Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics60(3): 421–432.
39.
Ramos-RodríguezA. R.Ruíz-NavarroJ. (2004) Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the strategic management journal 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal25(10): 981–1004.
40.
SubramanyamK. (1983) Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science6(1): 33–38.
41.
TanakaH.HoY. S. (2011) Global trends and performances of desalination research. Desalination and Water Treatment25(1): 3, 1–12.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2005). What do bibliometric indicators tell us about world scientific output? UIS Bulletin on Science and Technology Statistics, 2, 1--6.
44.
United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. (2013). Imports and exports statistics of the world. Retrieved from http://comtrade.un.org/db/default.aspx.
45.
van EckN. J.WaltmanL.DekkerR.van den BergJ. (2010) A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61(12): 2405–2416.
46.
WagnerC. S. (2005) Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics62(1): 3–26.
47.
WagnerC. S.LeydesdorffL. (2005) Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy34(10): 1608–1618.
48.
WattsD. J.StrogatzS. H. (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature393(6684): 440–442.
