A bibliometric journey into research trends in curriculum field: Analysis of two journals

Abstract

The field of curriculum is characterized by its porous and evolving boundaries, which are influenced by ongoing shifts in sociological, technological, scientific, and political domains. Given this dynamic context, the field necessitates continuous advancements to address these evolving trends. Consequently, its scope and prevailing research foci are subject to change, thereby shaping curricular adaptations. The primary objective of this study is to delineate the contemporary scope of curriculum studies by examining prevailing topics of discourse. Research articles published in two selected journals—Curriculum Inquiry and Journal of Curriculum Studies—were analyzed to achieve this. These journals were chosen for their alignment with the study's objective and were employed as primary data sources. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on data harvested from these publications, utilizing descriptive statistics through the Web of Science (WoS) system as an initial analytical step. Subsequently, VOSviewer software was employed for advanced bibliometric analyses. The study's findings offer both visual and descriptive insights into how the thematic focus within curriculum studies has shifted over time. Notably, recent discussions within the field underscore the exigency for democratic curriculum reforms. Moreover, the issues addressed by the selected journals closely align with current societal challenges.

Keywords

• Bibliometric analysis
• Co-occurrence analysis
• Curriculum studies
• Democratic curriculum reform

References

1. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
2. Chang, Y.H., Chang, C.Y., & Tseng, Y.H. (2010). Trends of science education research: an automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9202-2
3. CI (Curriculum Inquiry). (2023). Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rcui20/current
4. Darder, A., Baltodano, M. & Torres, R.D. (2003). The Critical Pedagogy Reader. Routledge.
5. Dewey. J. (2004). Democracy and education: An Introduction to the philosophy of education. Indian Edition. Aakar Books.
6. Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003
7. Hallinger, P., & Suriyankietkaew, S. (2018). Science mapping of the knowledge base on sustainable leadership, 1990 2018. Sustainability, 10(12), 1 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124846
8. Hinton, S. (2011). Ethnic diversity, national unity and multicultural education in China. US-China Education Review B, 1(5), 726-739.

9. Hotam, Y. (2019). Bildung: Liberal education and its devout origins. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 53 (4), 619-632. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12386
10. JCS (Journal of Curriculum Studies). (2023). Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tcus20/current.
11. Kelly, A.V. (2004). The Curriculum theory and practice (5th. Ed). Sage Publications.
12. Kaya, S. (2018). Evaluation of the middle school English language curriculum developed in 2012 utilizing Stake’s countenance evaluation model [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
13. Kaya, S. (2021). The factors predicting students’ participation in online English courses. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 91, 301 320. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2021.91.14
14. Kaya, S. (2022). Analysis of Finnish core curriculum in relation to curriculum theories (p.49-67). (Ed. Ş. Durukan). In Education & Science 2022-IV. Efe Academy.
15. Kaya, S. (2023). Why do pre-service teachers prefer face to face, online or hybrid education?. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 10(2), 379-392. https://dx.doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2023.10.2.1024
16. Lee, M.H., Wu, Y.T., & Tsai, C.C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (15), 1999-2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802314876
17. Levinson, M. (2007). Common schools and multicultural education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 625–642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2007.00587.x
18. Malinen, O., Vaisanen, P., & Savolainen, H. (2012). Teacher education in Finland: A review of a national effort for preparing teachers for the future. The Curriculum Journal, 23(4), 567– 584. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.731011
19. McLaren, P. (2001). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the politics of hope: Reclaiming critical pedagogy. Critical Methodologies, 1(1), 108 131. https://doi.org/10.1177/15327086010010011
20. Oliva, P.F. (1997). Developing the curriculum. (4th Ed.). Longman.
21. Ornstein, A.C., & Hunkins, F.P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues. Prentice Hall.
22. Romanelli, J.P., Fujimoto, J.T., Ferreira, M.D., & Milanez, D.H. (2018). Assessing ecological restoration as a research topic using bibliometric indicators. Ecological Engineering, 120, 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.06.015
23. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455 470. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060500317810
24. Staton-Spicer, A.Q, & Wulff, D.H. (1984). Research in communication and instruction: Categorization and synthesis. Communicative Education, 33(4), 377 391. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528409384767
25. Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429 472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629