Homophily studies in higher education: Bibliometric and methodological analysis of the international literature

Abstract

Homophily, the tendency of individuals to form relationships with others who are similar to themselves, has important implications for social networks and interactions in higher education settings. The networks formed under the university's educational framework, the transfer of behavior and information, and the examination of the social context in which the learning experience takes place have paved the way for research on homophily in higher education. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of research on homophily in higher education published in journals indexed in Web of Science Citation Databases (Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index) between 1991 and 2024. By searching for publications containing keywords related to homophily, higher education and learning, 46 articles were identified and analyzed using bibliometric tools and techniques. Key research areas/clusters, interdisciplinary distribution, patterns of productivity and collaboration across countries, keyword co-occurrence networks and citation networks were examined to reveal trends, influential studies, and the conceptual and intellectual structure of this research area. Using RStudio, Bibliometrix and VOSviewer to identify key trends, research areas and conceptual structures in the field, the study reveals that education, psychology and social sciences contribute a high proportion of research. The results highlight the development of homophily studies in the higher education context and provide conceptual and methodological foundation for future research on social relations, group dynamics and cultural diversity/dissent in universities.

Keywords

• higher education
• homophily
• social networks
• social learning
• bibliometric analysis

Yükseköğretimde Homofili çalışmaları: Uluslararası alanyazının bibliyometrik ve yöntemsel analizi

Öz

Bireylerin kendilerine benzeyen kişilerle ilişki kurma eğilimi olarak adlandırılan homofili, yükseköğretim ortamlarındaki sosyal ağlar ve etkileşimler için önemli etkilere sahiptir. Üniversiteki eğitim-öğretim çatısı altında oluşan ağlar, davranış ve enformasyonun aktarılması ve öğrenme deneyiminin gerçekleştiği sosyal bağlamın irdelenmesi yükseköğretimde homofili araştırmalarının önünü açmıştır. Bu çalışma, 1991-2024 yılları arasında Web of Science Citation Databases (Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index ve Arts & Humanities Citation Index) indekslerinde taranan dergilerde yayımlanan yükseköğretimde homofili konulu araştırmaların bibliyometrik bir analizini sunmaktadır. Homofili, yükseköğretim ve öğrenme ile ilgili anahtar kelimeleri içeren yayınlar aranarak 46 makale tespit edilmiş ve bibliyometrik araç ve teknikler kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Temel araştırma alanları/kümeleri, disiplinler arası dağılım, ülkeler arası üretkenlik ve iş birliği örüntüleri, anahtar kelime eş-oluşum ağları ve atıf ağları, eğilimleri, etkili çalışmaları ve bu araştırma alanının kavramsal ve entelektüel yapısını ortaya çıkarmak için incelenmiştir. RStudio, Bibliometrix ve VOSviewer kullanarak alandaki temel eğilimlerin, araştırma alanlarının ve kavramsal yapıların tanımlandığı çalışmada, eğitim, psikoloji ve sosyal bilimlerin yüksek oranda araştırma ile katkıda bulunduğu ortaya konmaktadır. Sonuçlar, homofili çalışmalarının yükseköğretim bağlamındaki gelişimini vurgulamakta ve üniversitelerdeki sosyal ilişkiler, grup dinamikleri ve kültürel çeşitlilik/ayrışma konularının gelecekte de araştırılması için kavramsal ve yöntemsel bir temel sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yükseköğretim
• homofili
• sosyal ağlar
• sosyal öğrenme
• bibliyometrik analiz

Kaynakça

1. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001
2. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
3. Azzarito, L., & Ennis, C. D. (2003). A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 8(2), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320309255
4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
5. Baumann, J. F. (1988). Direct instruction reconsidered. Journal of Reading, 31(8), 712-718.
6. Bhargava, P., Chen, D., Sutter, M., & Terrier, C. (2022). Homophily and transmission of behavioral traits in social networks. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4315546
7. Boda, Z., Elmer, T., Vörös, A., & Stadtfeld, C. (2020). Short-term and long-term effects of a social network intervention on friendships among university students. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 2889. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59594-z
8. Cetin-Dindar, A. (2015). Student motivation in constructivist learning environment. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1399a

9. Corden, R. (2001). Group discussion and the importance of a shared perspective: Learning from collaborative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 347-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100305
10. Dewey, J. (2015). Experience and education (First free press edition 2015). Free Press.
11. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
12. Du, W., Lee, H., Broderick, N. A., Aldana, C. C., Estrada, M., Handelsman, J., Maldonado, N., Miller, S., Patterson, M. S., Sandoval, P., & Hernandez, P. R. (2023). Amplifying similarity to promote college STEM instructor–student mentoring relationship quality: A cluster randomized trial. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1293885. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1293885
13. Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., Whitlock, J. L., & Downs, M. F. (2013). Social contagion of mental health: Evidence from college roommates. Health Economics, 22(8), 965-986. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2873
14. Ertug, G., Gargiulo, M., Galunic, C., & Zou, T. (2018). Homophily and individual performance. Organization Science, 29(5), 912-930. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1208
15. Esteve-Del-Valle, M. (2022). Homophily and polarization in Twitter political networks: A cross-country analysis. Media and Communication, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i2.4948
16. Fjelkner-Pihl, A. (2023). “Ok—I need help from somewhere”: ‘The educational value of multiplex student relationships in a commuter college’. Innovative Higher Education, 48(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09611-y
17. Grace, M. K. (2018). Friend or frenemy? Experiential homophily and educational track attrition among premedical students. Social Science & Medicine, 212, 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.008
18. Gradidge, P. J.-L., & Cohen, E. (2018). Body mass index and associated lifestyle and eating behaviours of female students at a South African university. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 31(4), 89-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/16070658.2017.1406176
19. Hale, A. E. (2009). Moreno’s sociometry: Exploring interpersonal connection. Group, 33(4), 347-358.
20. Heaton, B., & Gondal, N. (2023). Health-based homophily in public housing developments. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15146-4
21. Helzer, E. G., Cohen, T. R., Kim, Y., Iorio, A., & Aven, B. (2023). Moral beacons: Understanding moral character and moral influence. Journal of Personality, jopy.12865. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12865
22. Holmes, A. G. D. (2019). Constructivist learning in university undergraduate programmes. Has constructivism been fully embraced? Is there clear evidence that constructivist principles have been applied to all aspects of contemporary university undergraduate study? Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i1.819
23. Homophily, n.2. (2023). Içinde Oxford English Dictionary (3. bs). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3149111814
24. Horta, H., Feng, S., & Santos, J. M. (2022). Homophily in higher education research: A perspective based on co-authorships. Scientometrics, 127(1), 523-543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04227-z
25. Kadelka, C., & McCombs, A. (2021). Effect of homophily and correlation of beliefs on COVID-19 and general infectious disease outbreaks. PLOS ONE, 16(12), e0260973. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260973
26. Kassarnig, V., Bjerre-Nielsen, A., Mones, E., Lehmann, S., & Lassen, D. D. (2017). Class attendance, peer similarity, and academic performance in a large field study. PLOS ONE, 12(11), e0187078. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187078
27. Kassarnig, V., Mones, E., Bjerre-Nielsen, A., Sapiezynski, P., Dreyer Lassen, D., & Lehmann, S. (2018). Academic performance and behavioral patterns. EPJ Data Science, 7(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0138-8
28. Korkmaz, G., Kuhlman, C. J., Goldstein, J., & Vega-Redondo, F. (2020). A computational study of homophily and diffusion of common knowledge on social networks based on a model of Facebook. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 10(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-019-0615-5
29. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
30. Lawrence, B. S., & Shah, N. P. (2020). Homophily: Measures and meaning. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 513-597. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0147
31. Lazarides, M. K., Lazaridou, I.-Z., & Papanas, N. (2023). Bibliometric analysis: Bridging informatics with science. The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds, 153473462311535. https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346231153538
32. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. İçinde M. Berger (Ed.), Freedom and control in modern society (ss. 18-66). Van Nostrand.
33. Lewis, K., Gonzalez, M., & Kaufman, J. (2012). Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(1), 68-72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109739109
34. Li, X., Mobilia, M., Rucklidge, A. M., & Zia, R. K. P. (2021). How does homophily shape the topology of a dynamic network? Physical Review E, 104(4), 044311. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.104.044311
35. Liu, C.-F., & Mostafavi, A. (2023). Revealing hazard-exposure heterophily as a latent characteristic of community resilience in social-spatial networks. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 4817. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31702-9
36. Loomis, C. P., & Pepinsky, H. B. (1948). Sociometry, 1937-1947: Theory and methods. Sociometry, 11(3), 262. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785116
37. Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction and curriculum, and students’ interactions in urban middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 108(4), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1086/528973
38. Mayhew, B. H. (1980). Structuralism versus individualism: Part 1, shadowboxing in the dark. Social Forces, 59(2), 335. https://doi.org/10.2307/2578025
39. McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 370. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095356
40. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J, M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
41. Mnkandla, E., & Minnaar, A. (2017). The use of social media in e-learning: A metasynthesis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3014
42. Mollenhorst, G., Völker, B., & Flap, H. (2008). Social contexts and personal relationships: The effect of meeting opportunities on similarity for relationships of different strength. Social Networks, 30(1), 60-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.07.003
43. Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? Foundations to sociometry group psychotherapy and sociodrama. Beacon.
44. Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141-161. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32
45. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Teachers College Press.
46. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345-375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
47. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
48. Poskanzer, E., & Murray, F. (2022). Preference or persistence? The origins and implications of homophily in entrepreneurial networks. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2022(1), 15853. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2022.15853abstract
49. Powell, K., Wilcox, J., Clonan, A., Bissell, P., Preston, L., Peacock, M., & Holdsworth, M. (2015). The role of social networks in the development of overweight and obesity among adults: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 996. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2314-0
50. Robinson, C. D., Scott, W., & Gottfried, M. A. (2019). Taking it to the next level: A field experiment to improve instructor-student relationships in college. AERA Open, 5(1), 233285841983970. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419839707
51. RStudio Team. (t.y.). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R (Version 1.4.1717) [Software]. RStudio, PBC. https://www.rstudio.com/
52. Sander, P., & De La Fuente, J. (2020). Undergraduate student gender, personality and academic confidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5567. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155567
53. Schoe, Y., Van Mol, C., & Buynsters, M. (2021). Contextual factors that enable and restrain social network formation of Dutch Erasmus+ students. Journal of International Students, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v12i1.3143
54. Small, H. (1997). Update on science mapping: Creating large document spaces. Scientometrics, 38(2), 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457414
55. Smirnov, I., & Thurner, S. (2017). Formation of homophily in academic performance: Students change their friends rather than performance. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0183473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183473
56. Smith, R. A., Brown, M. G., Grady, K. A., Sowl, S., & Schulz, J. M. (2022). patterns of undergraduate student interpersonal ınteraction network change during the COVID-19 Pandemic. AERA Open, 8, 233285842110731. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211073160
57. Spelt, E. J. H., Luning, P. A., Van Boekel, M. A. J. S., & Mulder, M. (2017). A multidimensional approach to examine student interdisciplinary learning in science and engineering in higher education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 761-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1224228
58. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Dauber, D. (2019). Internationalisation and student diversity: How far are the opportunity benefits being perceived and exploited? Higher Education, 78(6), 1035-1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00386-4
59. Stryker, S., Serpe, R. T., & Hunt, M. O. (2005). Making good on a promise: The impact of larger social structures on commitments. Içinde Advances in Group Processes (C. 22, ss. 93-123). Emerald (MCB UP ). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(05)22004-0
60. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo Chambers: Bush V. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton University Press.
61. Teppo, M., Soobard, R., & Rannikmäe, M. (2021). Grade 6 & 9 student and teacher perceptions of teaching and learning approaches in relation to student perceived interest/enjoyment towards science learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(1), 119-133. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.119
62. Turner, J. H. (2016). The macro and meso basis of the micro social order. Içinde S. Abrutyn (Ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Sociological Theory (ss. 123-148). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32250-6_7
63. Van Eck, N. J. & Waltman, L. (2017). VOSViewer (Version 1.6.16) [Software]. Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). https://www.vosviewer.com/
64. Vygotskij, L. S., & Cole, M. (1981). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Nachdr.). Harvard Univ. Press.
65. Weber, H., Schwenzer, M., & Hillmert, S. (2020). Homophily in the formation and development of learning networks among university students. Network Science, 8(4), 469-491. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2020.10
66. Wenger-Trayner, É. (2008). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (18th printing). Cambridge University Press.
67. Wittek, M., Kroneberg, C., & Lämmermann, K. (2020). Who is fighting with whom? How ethnic origin shapes friendship, dislike, and physical violence relations in German secondary schools. Social Networks, 60, 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2019.04.004
68. Zhou, Y., Bos, N. A., Diemers, A. D., & Brouwer, J. (2023). A social network perspective on peer relationship formation of medical undergraduates within large-scale learning communities. Medical Education Online, 28(1), 2162253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2162253