Collaboration network of applied linguistics research articles with different methodological orientations

IF 3.7 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Mohammad Amini Farsani, H. Jamali
{"title":"Collaboration network of applied linguistics research articles with different methodological orientations","authors":"Mohammad Amini Farsani, H. Jamali","doi":"10.14746/ssllt.40214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current study draws on synthetic techniques and bibliometric analysis to explore the patterns of scientific collaboration in light of methodological orientations. We examined 3,992 applied linguistics (AL) articles published in 18 top-tier journals from 2009 to 2018 and analyzed their methodological orientations and scientific collaboration. Considering that the number of co-authored papers outweighs single-authored counterparts, our results revealed that the overall degree of collaboration for AL journals was moderate-to-high (57.7%). In particular, quantitative studies contained the highest degree of collaboration (66.8%). This was followed by systematic reviews (60.9%), and mixed-methods approach (55.7%). Country-wise, our overall findings further indicated that the United States and the United Kingdom were the two main hubs of collaborative activities for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. While the USA was the top country in systematic reviews like all other research approaches, the UK was the fifth country in systematic reviews. As for collaborating authors, our findings demonstrated that the most influential quantitative researchers had collaborated on Natural Language Processing (NLP) and data mining. While the mixed-methods researchers had a tendency to collaborate on conceptual issues subscribing to the language testing and assessment strand, the most productive qualitative researchers had collaborated on L2 writing issues. Implications for applied linguistics research are further discussed.","PeriodicalId":46277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching","volume":"155 1‐5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.40214","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current study draws on synthetic techniques and bibliometric analysis to explore the patterns of scientific collaboration in light of methodological orientations. We examined 3,992 applied linguistics (AL) articles published in 18 top-tier journals from 2009 to 2018 and analyzed their methodological orientations and scientific collaboration. Considering that the number of co-authored papers outweighs single-authored counterparts, our results revealed that the overall degree of collaboration for AL journals was moderate-to-high (57.7%). In particular, quantitative studies contained the highest degree of collaboration (66.8%). This was followed by systematic reviews (60.9%), and mixed-methods approach (55.7%). Country-wise, our overall findings further indicated that the United States and the United Kingdom were the two main hubs of collaborative activities for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. While the USA was the top country in systematic reviews like all other research approaches, the UK was the fifth country in systematic reviews. As for collaborating authors, our findings demonstrated that the most influential quantitative researchers had collaborated on Natural Language Processing (NLP) and data mining. While the mixed-methods researchers had a tendency to collaborate on conceptual issues subscribing to the language testing and assessment strand, the most productive qualitative researchers had collaborated on L2 writing issues. Implications for applied linguistics research are further discussed.
不同方法论取向的应用语言学研究文章协作网络
本研究利用合成技术和文献计量分析,探讨了方法论取向下的科学合作模式。我们考察了2009年至2018年在18种顶级期刊上发表的3992篇应用语言学(AL)文章,分析了它们的方法论取向和科研合作。考虑到合著论文的数量多于单篇论文,我们的结果显示,应用语言学期刊的整体合作程度为中高水平(57.7%)。其中,定量研究的合作程度最高(66.8%)。其次是系统综述(60.9%)和混合方法(55.7%)。从国家来看,我们的总体研究结果进一步表明,美国和英国是定量、定性和混合方法研究合作活动的两大中心。在所有其他研究方法的系统综述方面,美国居首位,而在系统综述方面,英国位居第五。至于合作作者,我们的研究结果表明,最有影响力的定量研究人员曾在自然语言处理(NLP)和数据挖掘方面进行过合作。混合方法研究人员倾向于在语言测试和评估领域的概念问题上进行合作,而最有成果的定性研究人员则在 L2 写作问题上进行了合作。本文进一步讨论了应用语言学研究的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
21
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching (ISSN 2083-5205) is a refereed journal published four times a year by the Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland. The language of publication is English. The journal is devoted to reporting previously unpublished highest quality theoretical and empirical research on learning and teaching second and foreign languages. It deals with the learning and teaching of any language, not only English, and focuses on a variety of topics ranging from the processes underlying second language acquisition, various aspects of language learning in instructed and non-instructed settings, as well as different facets of the teaching process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and evaluation. Each issue carries about 6 papers, 6000-8000 words in length, as well as reply articles and reviews. At least one of the four issues per year is a special focus issue devoted to a particular area of second language learning and teaching, sometimes with a guest editor who is an expert on a specific topic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信