Connecting Ethics and Evidence: Trends and Networks in Socio-Scientific Research (WoS 2002–2024)

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of research on ethics in socio-scientific issues, based on publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection between 2002 and 2024. Utilizing advanced bibliometric mapping techniques, the study examines publication trends, identifies key authors and institutions, and highlights the most frequently cited works in the field. Furthermore, the research explores the network structure of bibliographic references, revealing thematic connections and emerging trends in ethics-related discussions within socio-scientific contexts. Findings indicate a consistent increase in scholarly attention to ethical considerations in socio-scientific issues, with a peak in publication activity observed in 2021. Among contributing scholars, Dana L. Zeidler emerges as the most prolific author, while the United States holds the leading position in institutional affiliations and publication output. The study also identifies significant international collaborations, particularly between the USA and Türkiye. Additionally, the analysis highlights the most influential publications through citation metrics, underscoring their impact on shaping ethical discourse in socio-scientific research. By mapping the evolution of key themes and emerging terminologies in this domain, the study offers valuable insights into the intellectual structure and future directions of research on ethics in socio-scientific issues. These findings provide a robust foundation for scholars, policymakers, and educators seeking to advance ethical considerations in scientific and societal discourse.

Keywords

• bibliometric analysis
• ethics
• ethics education
• socio-scientific issues

Ethical Statement

This study adhered to all relevant ethical guidelines. Since the research is based on bibliometric analysis and publicly available data, no formal ethics committee approval was required.

Etik ve Kanıtı Birleştirmek: Sosyo-Bilimsel Araştırmalarda Eğilimler ve Ağlar (WoS 2002–2024)

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 2002 ile 2024 yılları arasında Web of Science Core Collection’da dizinlenen yayınlar temelinde, sosyo-bilimsel konularda etik üzerine yapılan araştırmaları kapsamlı bir bibliyometrik analizle incelemektedir. Gelişmiş bibliyometrik haritalama teknikleri kullanılarak yapılan bu analiz, yayın eğilimlerini değerlendirmekte, öne çıkan yazarları ve kurumları belirlemekte ve alandaki en sık atıf alan çalışmaları ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, bibliyografik atıf ağ yapıları incelenerek, etikle ilgili tartışmaların sosyo-bilimsel bağlamlardaki tematik bağlantıları ve ortaya çıkan eğilimleri ortaya konmaktadır. Bulgular, sosyo-bilimsel konularda etik değerlendirmelere yönelik akademik ilginin istikrarlı bir artış gösterdiğini ve yayın faaliyetinde zirvenin 2021 yılında gerçekleştiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Katkı sağlayan araştırmacılar arasında Dana L. Zeidler en üretken yazar olarak öne çıkarken, kurumsal bağlılıklar ve yayın sayısı bakımından Amerika Birleşik Devletleri lider konumdadır. Çalışma ayrıca, özellikle ABD ile Türkiye arasındaki önemli uluslararası iş birliklerini de tanımlamaktadır. Atıf metrikleri üzerinden yapılan analiz, alandaki etik söylemi şekillendiren en etkili yayınları da ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma, sosyo-bilimsel konularda etik araştırmalarının entelektüel yapısını ve gelecekteki yönelimlerini haritalayarak, araştırmacılar, politika yapıcılar ve eğitimciler için bilimsel ve toplumsal söylemlerde etik boyutların güçlendirilmesine yönelik değerli bir zemin sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• bibliyometrik analiz
• etik
• etik eğitimi
• sosyo-bilimsel konular
• web of science

References

1. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 959–975. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
2. Avci, E. (2017). Learning from experiences to determine quality in ethics education. International Journal of Ethics Education, 2, 3–16.
3. Callahan, D., & Bok, S. (Eds.). (1980). Ethics teaching in higher education. Springer.
4. Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 342-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x
5. Donev, D. (2021). Importance of introducing Ethics education in the curricula. Metodički Gledi: Časopis Za Filozofiju Odgoja, 28(2), 37-52.
6. El Baradei, L. (2021). Ethics education in public affairs programs: What do faculty around the globe have to say?. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(2), 198-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2020.1818023
7. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(2), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787909
8. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

9. Gough, A. (2013). The emergence of environmental education research: A “history” of the field. In International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 13-22). Routledge.
10. Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. A. B. (2018). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
11. Hancock, T. S., Friedrichsen, P. J., Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Selecting socio-scientific issues for teaching: A grounded theory study of how science teachers collaboratively design SSI-based curricula. Science & Education, 28, 639-667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00065-x
12. Herman, B. C. (2015). The influence of global warming science views and sociocultural factors on willingness to mitigate global warming. Science Education, 1(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21136
13. Herman, B. C. (2018). Students’ environmental NOS views, compassion, intent, and action: Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(4), 600–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21433
14. Herman, B. C., Newton, M. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2021). Impact of place‐based socioscientific issues instruction on students' contextualization of socioscientific orientations. Science Education, 105(4), 585-627. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21618
15. Herman, B. C., Owens, D. C., Oertli, R. T., Zangori, L. A., & Newton, M. H. (2019). Exploring the complexity of students’ scientific explanations and associated nature of science views within a place-based socioscientific issue context. Science & Education, 28, 329-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00034-4
16. Herman, B. C., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. H. (2018). A Socioscientific Issues Approach to Environmental Education. In: G. Reis & J. Scott (Eds.), International Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Environmental Education: A Reader(Vol.3.)Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67732-3_11
17. Hernández-Torrano, D., & Ibrayeva, L. (2020). Creativity and education: A bibliometric mapping of the research literature (1975–2019). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100625
18. Hess, J. L., Sanders, E., Fore, G. A., Coleman, M., Price, M., Nyarko, S. C., & Sorge, B. (2024). Transforming ethics education through a faculty learning community: “I’m coming around to seeing ethics as being maybe as important as calculus”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 30(5), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00503-2
19. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Brill.
20. Hodson, D. (2013). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911-970). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
21. Houten, V. H. & Hall, R. V. (2001). The measurement of behavior: Behavior modification (3rd ed.) All Books and Monographs by WMU Authors. 518. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/books/518
22. Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). A case for the use of conceptual analysis in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 538-551. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21376
23. Karakaya, F., & Arslan, O. (2016). Students’ethical approaches related to animal experiment: 9th grade example. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(4), 208-223. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.267916
24. Karışan, D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2024). Teaching socioscientific issues in the digital age: Emerging trends and unexplored frontiers. Turkish Journal of Education, 13(1), 92-109. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.1384524
25. Kidd, D., Miner, J., Schein, M., Blauw, M., & Allen, D. (2020). Ethics across the curriculum: Detecting and describing emergent trends in ethics education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 100914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100914
26. Kinslow, A. T., Sadler, T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2019). Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology class. Environmental Education Research, 25(3), 388-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1442418
27. Kolarova, T., Hadjiali, I., & Denev, I. (2013). High school students' reasoning in making decisions about socio-ethical issues of genetic engineering: Case of gene therapy. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 27(2), 3737-374. https://doi.org/10.5504/BBEQ.2012.0133
28. Lee, H., & Witz, K. G. (2009). Science teachers' inspiration for teaching socio‐scientific issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 931-960. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801898903
29. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
30. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
31. Lee, J. (2021). A missing piece in high school science education: Research ethics in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 43(11), 1799-1816. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1934602
32. Löfström, J., Ammert, N., Edling, S., & Sharp, H. (2021). Advances in ethics education in the history classroom: After intersections of moral and historical consciousness. International Journal of Ethics Education, 6(2), 239-252. https://doi.org/I10.1007/s40889-020-00116-w
33. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOI.2018.09.002
34. Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
35. Mawasi, A., Nagy, P., Finn, E., & Wylie, R. (2022). Narrative-based learning activities for science ethics education: an Affordance perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31, 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09928-x
36. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.
37. Merigó, J. M., Pedrycz, W., Weber, R., & de la Sotta, C. (2018). Fifty years of Information Sciences: A bibliometric overview. Information Sciences, 432, 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.11.054
38. Nguyen, A. L., & Dellaportas, S. (2021). Accounting Ethics Education Research: A Historical Review of the Literature. In Accounting Ethics Education Teaching Virtues and Values (Vol. 3, pp. 44-80). Routledge.
39. Pinheiro, M. M., & Costa, A. J. (Eds.). (2020). Accounting ethics education: Teaching virtues and values. Routledge.
40. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
41. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
42. Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142
43. Said, K., & Al-Tarawneh, K. I. (2013). Ethics and postsecondary accounting curriculum in Bahrain: Perspective from faculty members. Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 5(3), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.5897/JAT2013.0114
44. Saunders, K. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43, 253-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9248-z
45. Shamim, M. S. (2020). A contextually relevant ethics education model. International Journal of Ethics Education, 5(1), 97-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-020-00086-z
46. Singer Jr, S., & Diab, D. (2021). Ethics education: The impact of ethics training engagement on unethical decision-making in the workplace. International Journal of Ethics Education, 6(1), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-020-00114-y
47. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4),265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
48. Steele, A. (2016). Troubling STEM: Making a case for an ethics/STEM partnership. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 357-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9463-6
49. Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes Science. In Harvard University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674062757
50. Talash, K., Anthias, C., & Machin, L. L. (2022). Exploring the perceived benefits of ethics education for laboratory professionals. International Journal of Ethics Education, 7(1), 201-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-022-00140-y
51. Topçu, M. S., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Turkish preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9221-0
52. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
53. Walters, S., Heilbronn, R., & Daly, C. (2018). Ethics education in initial teacher education: pre-service provision in England. Professional Development in Education, 44(3), 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1318773
54. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume II (pp. 697-726). Routledge.
55. Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z
56. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., Kahn, S., & Newton, M. (2016). Humanitas emptor: Reconsidering recent trends and policy in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(5), 465-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9481-4
57. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. (2013). Cross‐cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21077
58. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2008). Advancing reflective judgment through Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
59. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
60. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025
61. Zhao, J. (2017, December). Research on Accounting Ethics Education. In 3rd International Conference on Economics, Management, Law and Education (EMLE 2017) (pp. 650-651). Atlantis Press.
62. Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629