A Bibliometric Analysis

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

4-5-2021

Trend of Research Visualization of Sociology of Education from 2001 to 2020: A Bibliometric Analysis

Dr. Hazir Ullah Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan, [email protected]

Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac

Part of the Archival Science Commons, Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Sociology Commons, Higher Education Commons, and the Theory, Knowledge and Science Commons

Ullah, Dr. Hazir and Shoaib, Mr. Muhammad, "Trend of Research Visualization of Sociology of Education from 2001 to 2020: A Bibliometric Analysis" (2021). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 5172. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5172 Trend of Research Visualization of Sociology of Education from 2001 to 2020: A Bibliometric Analysis

First Author

Dr. Hazir Ullah

Associate Professor Department of Sociology Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan Email: [email protected]

Second and Corresponding Author

Muhammad Shoaib

Assistant Professor Department of Sociology University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan Email: [email protected]

Trend of Research Visualization of Sociology of Education from 2001 to 2020: A Bibliometric Analysis Abstract This paper is designed to evaluate sociology of knowledge, sociology of education, educational sociology, sociology, and education using bibliometric analysis from 2001 to 2020. The main purpose is to consolidate the published scholarship on the sociology of education in the Web of Science indexed documents. There was a lack of measurable quantities on the subject. We used the bibliometric analysis and a total of 1698 published documents were found. The study findings showed that the topic of 'sociology of knowledge' was on top with a total number of 1698 publications, 1392 articles as a type of published documents, 1236 publications in English, and a considerable increase in publications as per years were found. The top author named Young M was found with 504 citations and 8 documents started from 2001. Similarly, the Department of Sociology was on the top out of 1088 organization, United States (US) was on the top out of 40 countries, and sociology of knowledge as a keyword out of 4266. Further, the British Journal of Sociology of Education was placed at the top of sources out of 828, and the Economic Social Research Council ESRC as a top funding agency. We have presented the trend of data in tables and figures. Keywords: Sociology of Knowledge, Sociology of Education, Educational Sociology, Sociology and Education, Bibliometric Study Introduction In this paper, we have evaluated the trend of sociology of knowledge, sociology of education, educational sociology, sociology and education using bibliometric analysis from 2001 to 2020. The sociology of education has a recognizable history from the appearance of Laster Ward’s Dynamic Sociology in 1883 and Dewey’s work The School and Society in 1889. Nevertheless, the greater part of this earlier scholarship had little relevance to the study of education as a social institution as discussed and debated by Emile Durkheim (Floud & Halsey, 1958). Durkheim’s work can be considered one of the earlier literature in sociology of education. It was in 1916 that the term Educational Sociology came into popular discourses and writings. In 1928, the Journal of Sociology of Education was lunched. Since 1930, the application of sociological theories to education has become an established subfield of sociology. Many sociologists looked closely at the educational system as an aspect of social stratification and focused their attention upon

2 education as a subject matter of sociology (Banks, 1982). The early works were focused the analysis of educational systems the way these are related both to the division of labour and social stratification. In America education was discussed and debated more in terms of its function in the provision of educated and adaptable labourers to modern industrial society. In the United Kingdom, the functionalist perspective was combined with a critical attitude towards a wastage of working class ability (Banks, 1982). This article aims to spotlight the published work on sociology of education, sociology, education and sociology of knowledge. Knowledge exists as long as we know the human history (Peng, Zhu, & Wu, 2020). From the very origin our history we have constructed and produced knowledge (Macauley, Evans, Pearson, & Tregenza, 2005). Over the period of history, human beings have explored new horizons of knowledge (Hernández-Torrano & Kuzhabekova, 2020). Human have deconstructed and accumulated knowledge through different traditional and modern methods in libraries (Appleton, 2020). The invention of writing skills and the modern means of writing and publishing have enabled human beings to accumulate knowledge in more sophisticated manners (Gaetjens, 2020). Presently, one of the common ways of producing knowledge is writing the research documents (academics thesis, books, articles, reports etc) which are disseminated across the globe (Litsey, Allen, Cassidy, DeVet, & McEniry, 2020). Since the knowledge is accumulated and stored under different web of knowledge (Johns & Shonrock, 2007). These webs are now easily accessible to individuals and institutions (Garrigos-Simon, Botella-Carrubi, & Gonzalez-Cruz, 2018). Further, this bank of knowledge is used by researchers and scientists to refer to the studies already conducted (Thanuskodi, 2010). On the sociology of knowledge and education, a considerable studies are conducted and published across the globe. Most of these studies are available to the students and researchers in hard and soft forms (Ivanović & Ho, 2019). For the last two decades, a radical shift has been found where most of the knowledge has transformed into e-knowledge (Habiba & Ahmed, 2020). In pursuance, the libraries were also transformed into e-libraries (Kane & Mahoney, 2020). It has become possible due to modern technology. The studies on the sociology of knowledge and sociology of education are normally found while using different web sources. The bibliography is used by researchers and scientists across the globe that is equally accessible (Fejes & Nylander, 2014; Tsay, 2011). Similarly, these studies guide the researchers in the field of sociology of knowledge (Cheng, Wang, Mørch, Chen, & Spector, 2014; Dehdarirad, Villarroya, & Barrios, 2015). It also helps them in finding the literature about the phenomenon, methods, and

3 nature of the studies (Hall, 2011). Further, it also supports the researchers to sort out the new knowledge and revisit the existing while adding on the bibliographies in the world (Roig-Tierno, Gonzalez-Cruz, & Llopis-Martinez, 2017). These bibliographic studies are internationally linked to the international citation directories including web of knowledge and different databases (Baker, 1991). Furthermore, it delivers the strength to the knowledge and removes the weaknesses over time (Julia et al., 2020). Moreover, this bibliographic material is found in different forms of published documents including research articles, reports, books, chapters, reviews, and editorials (Aparicio, Iturralde, & Maseda, 2020; Gaviria-Marin, Merigó, & Baier-Fuentes, 2019; Healy, Hammer, & McIlveen, 2020). It is pertinent to mention here that we are going to analyze the research documents published in the last two decades in the field of sociology of education. A great bulk of the literature has been evidenced growing in the last two decades due to the access technology that further paved the way for the common people to access, research, and construct the knowledge. Objectives of the Study We articulated the following objectives to evaluate sociology of knowledge, sociology of education, educational sociology, sociology, and education using bibliometric analysis from 2001 to 2020. 1. To study the published documents by their topics and document types; 2. To unpack the published documents by their language and years of publication; 3. To evaluate published documents by their top twenty results of authors’ information; 4. To conclude the published documents by top twenty organizations and counties; 5. To dissect published documents by top twenty keywords, sources of publications, funding agencies, and citations. Review of Literature A substantial amount of literature revealed that the bibliographic studies or the electronic use of the studies emerged with the advancement of the technology (Brown, Ho, & Gutman, 2019; Ivanović & Ho, 2019). Previously, traditional methods of searching the material in libraries and reading the old text or traveling to the thousands of miles for the sake of research have now come to an end (Damerchiloo et al., 2020). It is because of modern technology where all old and new text /knowledge is transformed and converted into online webs (Farhan & Razmak, 2020). It is initiated in the developed countries where the knowledge was transformed from traditional

4 methods of libraries to e-libraries (Tammaro, 2020). In most of the developed countries, all the knowledge regarding education, educational management, and transformations is available online (Paudel, 2021; Rapanta, Botturi, Goodyear, Guàrdia, & Koole, 2020). The developed nations have made it easier to access the knowledge to their fellow men. Similarly, the online data basis was produced, and international citation categories were introduced (Harlow & Hill, 2020). These databases provide studies regarding the sociology of education across the globe (Adams, 2020). In developed nations, the transformations in education and educational system either it is primary, secondary, or tertiary education are subject to the research produced in the field of sociology of education (Machovec, 2020; Vogus, 2020). Institutions mainly rely on the studies produced by researchers and comply with the researchers to further revisit the policies (Cole & Stenström, 2020). Similarly, researchers used these studies to further revisit the knowledge or add to the existing body of knowledge (Adams, 2020). The major purpose of creating such a data basis was to expand the research as the developed nations seriously take these studies and execute the findings of the research (Vogus, 2020). Moreover, the researchers use these bibliographies in research conducted in educational institutions (Vitella, 2020). These were equally used by the students, researchers, academicians, and professionals from every walk of life under the domain of sociology of knowledge (Earp, 2010; Phelan, Anderson, & Bourke, 2000). In developing countries, traditional methods of accumulation of knowledge remained in practice for a long (Goyal & Kumar, 2021; Lopes, Fidalgo-Neto, & Mota, 2017). It was in the case of libraries and written old text (On-Lee & Mak, 2010). These countries were deficient in technology and could not develop databases as compared to the developed countries (Azonobi, Uwaifo, & Tella, 2020; Shoaib, Abdullah, & Ali, 2020; Shoaib, Rasool, & Anwar, 2021). With time, by looking at the developed countries, the transformations were initiated (Chidi Nuel-Jean & Okoye, 2020). The libraries were converted into e-libraries while links were added to the databases to get benefitted from the bibliographies of the international web of knowledge (Kane & Mahoney, 2020). For the last two decades, a shift in technology is evident as online databases are also introduced in the developing countries in education and knowledge management (Franceschet, 2010; Lisée, Larivière, & Archambault, 2008; Phelan et al., 2000). It has been found that all the material except the old text is available on the internet and available to researchers, students, academics, and other professionals (Aparicio et al., 2020; Ivanović & Ho, 2019; Thanuskodi, 2010). These bibliographic studies are important for producing new knowledge and revisiting the

5 existing knowledge (Brown et al., 2019; Zawacki-Richter, Anderson, & Tuncay, 2010). It has also been found that the researchers now mainly rely on the bibliographic studies in every field as indexes were clear and carry the international citations as well (Abramo, D’Angelo, & Caprasecca, 2009; Ivanov, Markusova, & Mindeli, 2016; On-Lee & Mak, 2010). The Data and Methods This study is purely based on the bibliometric analysis and does not outline methodology in the same fashion as we do it for primary data analysis. It is uses data from web’s database. The database ‘Web of Science’ was used to extract the data from the Science Citation Index database, Web of Science (Core Collection). Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI- SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, and IC. The searched query [TS=(“Sociology of Knowledge”) OR TS=(“Sociology of Education”) OR TS=(“Educational Sociology”) OR TS=(“Sociology and Education”)] was used and data was collected on February 12, 2021 (GMT-11:22 am) with the period of 2001 to 2020 (20 years). Software including MS Excel, VOSviewer, ScientoPy, and Biblioshiny was used to analyze data to develop tables and figures. A total of 1698 published documents were found and results were drawn. Results and Discussions This section provides the results and discussion on the subject underhand. Further, the results and discussion are depicted with the support of tables and figures as per the objectives of the study. Objective 1: To study the published documents by their topics and document types Table 1 describes published documents by their topic and document types from 2001 to 2020. It indicates in section-a of Table 1 that the sociology of knowledge topic is published 50.0 percent out of 1698 documents. Further, sociology of education is placed at the second position as 43.0 percent of the total documents. Furthermore, educational sociology (5.0 %) and sociology and education (2.0 %) topic is published less in number in different documents. It is important to mention here that sociology of knowledge is published half time among the four topics in published available documents from 2001 to 2020. It is also pertinent to mention that 8.18 documents are published in each year out of 20 selected years. Thus, sociology of knowledge is a very important topic for researchers and is used for publication. The study findings are aligned with the results based on the bibliometric analysis of Goyal and Kumar (2021). Similarly, the results of the bibliometric analysis of Hallinger and Kulophas (2020) also support the current findings.

Table 1 Distribution of Published Documents by Their Topics and Document Types (2001-2020) a) Topic of the documents Total Publications Percentage Sociology of Knowledge 849 50.00 Sociology of Education 734 43.00 Educational Sociology 83 05.00 Sociology and Education 32 02.00 Total 1698 100.00 b) Type of the documents Total Publications Percentage Article 1392 81.98 Biographical Item 01 00.06 Book Chapter 01 00.06 Book Review 131 07.71 Editorial Material 53 03.12 Letter 03 00.18 Meeting Abstract 01 00.06 Proceedings Paper 51 03.00 Review 65 03.83 Total 1698 100.00

The second part of Table 1 depicts the type of documents published from 2001 to 2020 on the subject underhand. Data present that 81.98 percent of the published documents are articles and 7.71 percent are book review. Further, there is a smaller portion of published documents as biographical items, book chapters, editorial material, letter, meeting abstract, proceedings paper, and review. It is concluded that a major proportion of published documents is the article as a type of document that is published in 828 sources including journals, books, etc. Thus, it is asserted that research scholars prefer to publish the article as a type of document on the subject under hand from 2001 to 2020. The following study findings are similarly based on bibliometric analysis with the findings of Thanuskodi (2010) and Hall (2011). Objective 2: To unpack the published documents by their language and years of publication Statistical data presented in Table 2 presents the language and year of published documents from 2001 to 2020. The first part of the table shows that 72.8 percent of the language of the published document is English. Similarly, the Spanish language is placed in the second position with the percentage of 7.2 and German language as at third number in a hierarchy with the percentage of 6.4 among the language of published documents. Further, Czech and Turkish language has similar proportion (.70 %) among the language of published documents. It is also indicated that Slovak and Swedish language is also used equally among published documents as 0.2 %. However, very

7 few (0.06 %) published documents used the language of Icelandic, Norwegian, and Serbian languages from 2001 to 2020. Likewise, there are 18 different languages used in published documents on the subject underhand. Hence, it is asserted that the English language is very important for researchers and used in a major proportion of published documents. It is important to mention here that the English language is an international language and preferred to increase the readership of published documents around the globe. The study findings are linked with the findings of Baker (1991) and Franceschet (2010) reference to bibliometric analysis. Table 2 Distribution of Published Documents by Their Language and Years a) Published documents by their language Languages TP* Percentage Languages TP* Percentage English 1236 72.792 Slovak 4 0.236 Spanish 123 7.244 Swedish 4 0.236 German 109 6.419 Croatian 3 0.177 Portuguese 73 4.299 Polish 3 0.177 Russian 70 4.122 Hungarian 2 0.118 French 36 2.12 Lithuanian 2 0.118 Czech 12 0.707 Icelandic 1 0.059 Turkish 12 0.707 Norwegian 1 0.059 Italian 6 0.353 Serbian 1 0.059 TP* = Total Publication b) Published documents by their years Years Publications Percentage Years Publications Percentage 2001 41 2.415 2011 95 5.595 2002 37 2.179 2012 98 5.771 2003 31 1.826 2013 126 7.420 2004 33 1.943 2014 97 5.713 2005 49 2.886 2015 119 7.008 2006 55 3.239 2016 115 6.773 2007 51 3.004 2017 144 8.481 2008 69 4.064 2018 114 6.714 2009 65 3.828 2019 135 7.951 2010 83 4.888 2020 141 8.304

The second part of Table 2 highlights the distribution of published documents by their year of publication. It indicates that the year of highest proportion (8.5 %) of the published documents is 2017 and the year 2020 is placed at second position among twenty years for published documents with a percentage of 8.3. Similarly, it is reported that the concern of published documents in 2019 and 2015 are 7.9 and 7.0 percent respectively. Conversely, there are smaller portion of published documents in 2003 and 2004 i.e., 1.8 & 1.9 percent in that order. Henceforth, it is asserted that

8 documents are published in twenty years are distributed with a smaller difference in number from 2001 to 2020. It is also important to mention that 8.18 documents are published in each year out of 20 selected years. The following results are aligned with the results based on the similar methodology of Kuzhabekova (2021) and Earp (2010). Objective 3: To evaluate published documents by their top twenty results of authors’ information Table 3 Distribution of Published Documents by Their Top Twenty Results of Authors’ Information Author h_index g_index m_index TC* TP* PY*_Start Young M 6 8 0.286 504 8 2001 Nash R 6 7 0.286 125 7 2001 Rata E 5 7 0.417 98 7 2010 Keller R 4 6 0.250 121 6 2006 Whitty G 5 6 0.238 190 6 2001 Collyer F 4 5 0.444 75 5 2013 Muller J 5 5 0.250 397 5 2002 Osipov AM 2 3 0.111 10 5 2004 Sobkin VS 2 2 0.182 09 5 2011 Stehr N 2 4 0.105 18 5 2003 Welsh J 4 5 --- 28 5 2018 Wolff K 2 3 0.400 10 5 2017 Archer L 3 4 0.188 108 4 2006 Bloor D 2 3 0.133 13 4 2007 Connell R 3 4 0.429 51 4 2015 Demeter T 2 3 0.143 11 4 2008 Hammersley M 3 4 0.158 51 4 2003 Hordern J 2 4 0.333 19 4 2016 Hornidge AK 2 4 0.250 17 4 2014 Oliveira A 0 0 0.000 00 4 2013 TC* = Total Citations, TP* = Total Publication, PY* = Publication Year

Table 3 describes published documents by the top twenty authors' information from 2001 to 2020. It indicates that the author named Young M is at the top of the list with h_index of 6, g_index of 8, and m_index of 0.286. Similarly, Young M is in the first position with a total citation of 504 having 8 publications started from 2001 during the said period. By the same token, Nash R is in the second position of the top twenty authors in the list. Nash has 6 h_index, 7 g_index, 0.286 m_index with 125 citations in total from 7 published documents started from 2001 in the specific year i.e., 2001-2020. Contrary to it, Hornidge AK and Oliveira A are at the bottom of the top

9 twenty authors' information. Further, the names of Rata E, Keller R, Whitty G, Collyer F, Muller J, Osipov AM, Sobkin VS, and Stehr N are also in the top twenty authors' information list. It is asserted that the name of Young M is at the top and Oliveira A is at bottom of the top twenty authors' information list. It is important to mention here that there is a total of 2203 authors published their work on the subject under hand from 2001 to 2020. Further, it reports that there are 2534 authors' appearances and 1013 authors of single-authored documents, 1190 authors of multi-authored documents, 1171 single-authored documents, and 0.771 documents per author. Similarly, it is also highlighted that there are 1.3 authors per Document, 1.49 co-authors per document, and 2.26 collaboration index. Further, the study findings are aligned with the findings of Julia et al. (2020) and Lopes et al. (2017). Objective 4: To conclude the published documents by top twenty organizations and counties Table 4 Distribution of Published Documents by Top Twenty Organizations Organization TP* AGR* ADY* PDLY* h-index Dept. Sociol. 39 0 0 0 15 Russian Acad. Sci. 16 -2 1 12.5 3 Cardiff Univ. 14 2 3 42.9 4 Univ. Edinburgh 14 1 2 28.6 4 Free Univ. Berlin 13 0.5 1.5 23.1 4 UCL 13 -2.5 1 15.4 6 Univ. Cape Town 11 -1.5 0 0 6 Univ. Melbourne 11 0.5 2 36.4 6 Fac. Educ. 10 0 0 0 7 Sch. Educ. 10 0 0 0 7 Univ. Birmingham 9 1 1.5 33.3 4 Univ. Copenhagen 9 -0.5 1 22.2 4 Univ. London 9 0 0 0 7 Univ. Toronto 9 -1 1 22.2 4 Univ. Wisconsin 9 0.5 0.5 11.1 5 Coll. Educ. 8 0 0 0 6 Dept. Educ. 8 0 0 0 5 Penn State Univ. 8 0.5 0.5 12.5 4 Univ. Auckland 8 -0.5 0.5 12.5 5 Univ. Cambridge 8 1 2.5 62.5 2 TP* = Total Publication, AGR* = Average Growth Rate, ADY* = Average Documents per Year, PDLY* = Percentage of Documents in Last Years

Table 4 presents published documents by their top twenty organizations from 2001 to 2020. It indicates that the name of dept. social. is at top of twenty organizations as mentioned on the

10 published document with 39 publications in total and 15 h-index. Similarly, Russian Acad. Sci. is placed at the second position of the list with 16 publications with 12.5 percent documents in last year. Contrary to it, the name of Univ. Cambridge is placed at the bottom of top the list of top twenty organizations with 8 publications in the 20 years on the subject under discussion. However, Cardiff Univ. and Univ. Edinburgh has the same number of publications 14 in number. Likewise, Free Univ. Berlin and UCL also have the same proportion of published documents and places the name in the top twenty organizations. Furthermore, the name of Univ. Cape Town, Univ. Melbourne, and Univ. Birmingham is also in the top twenty organizations that have published documents on the topic underhand (See Figure 1). It is important to mention here that there is total 1088 number of organizations' names are found on the published documents from 2001 to 2020. The following results are similarly derived as drawn by the study of Roig-Tierno et al. (2017).

Figure 1. Published Documents by Top Productive Organizations (2001-2020) Table 5 presents the name of the top twenty countries as per the number of publications. It shows that the United States is at top of the list with 296 publications, 27 7 with single country publications, and 19 with multiple country countries. Similarly, United Kingdom stands in the second position among the top twenty countries with 265 publications. Here, 235 published documents are single country publications and 30 are multiple country publications. The name of Germany is at third position with 176 publications and 166 are single country publications. However, China and France have a similar number of publications among the top twenty countries from 2001 to 2020. Similarly, Israel, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Turkey have the same number

11 of publications among the top countries list i.e., 22. Contrary to it, Argentina and Mexico are at bottom of the top twenty counties as per the number of total publications (i.e., 15). It is important to mention here that the name of Italy, Austria, South Africa, Canada, Russia, Spain, Brazil, and Australia is in the list of top twenty countries as per the number of publications during the specific period (See Figure 2). Thus, it is asserted that the United States is at the top and Mexico is at bottom of the top twenty countries based on a total number of publications. There are 40 countries total in number. The findings are aligned with the findings based on bibliometric analysis of Dehdarirad et al. (2015) and Brown et al. (2019). Table 5 Distribution of Published Documents by Top Twenty Counties Country TP* Freq. SCP* MCP* MCP*_Ratio USA 296 0.184539 277 19 0.0642 United Kingdom 265 0.165212 235 30 0.1132 Germany 176 0.109726 166 10 0.0568 Australia 81 0.050499 72 9 0.1111 Brazil 78 0.048628 77 1 0.0128 Spain 69 0.043017 67 2 0.0290 Russia 68 0.042394 68 0 0.0000 Canada 61 0.038030 57 4 0.0656 South Africa 38 0.023691 37 1 0.0263 China 35 0.021820 32 3 0.0857 France 35 0.021820 32 3 0.0857 Israel 22 0.013716 18 4 0.1818 New Zealand 22 0.013716 20 2 0.0909 Switzerland 22 0.013716 20 2 0.0909 Turkey 22 0.013716 22 0 0.0000 Austria 21 0.013092 18 3 0.1429 Italy 19 0.011845 17 2 0.1053 Denmark 17 0.010599 15 2 0.1176 Argentina 15 0.009352 10 5 0.3333 Mexico 15 0.009352 12 3 0.2000 TP* = Total Publication, SCP* = Single Country Publications, MCP* = Multiple Country Publications

Figure 2. Published Documents by Top Country Collaborations (2001-2020) Objective 5: To dissect published documents by top twenty keywords, sources of publications, funding agencies, and citations Table 6 Distribution of Published Documents by Top Twenty Keywords Keywords f TLS* Keyword f TLS* Sociology of Knowledge 422 619 Curriculum 22 49 Sociology of Education 258 377 Ethnography 26 49 Education 66 152 Social Sciences 11 46 Sociology 44 113 Inequality 19 39 Higher Education 57 103 Methodology 13 39 Knowledge 40 89 Sociology of Science 17 39 Epistemology 39 80 Cultural Capital 19 34 Gender 26 63 Globalization 15 34 Educational Sociology 32 57 Power 13 34 Social Theory 18 55 Sociological Theory 10 34 TLS* = Total Link Strength

Table 6 indicates the top twenty keywords used in 1698 published documents on the subject under discussion from 2001 to 2020. It shows that sociology of knowledge is at top of twenty keywords i.e., 422 in number. Similarly, sociology of education is placed at the second position of the top twenty keywords with 258 times. By the same token, education is used 66 times and sociology is used 44 times as a keyword in the published documents on the subject. Further, inequality and

13 cultural capital are used 19 times each as keywords and placed in the top twenty keywords. However, sociological theory is at the bottom position of the top twenty keywords i.e. 10 in number. Furthermore, the keyword curriculum, ethnography, gender, higher education, knowledge, epistemology, educational sociology, social theory, cultural capital, sociology of science, and social sciences are also in the top twenty keywords list of published documents from 2001 to 2020 (See Figure 3). It is asserted that sociology of knowledge and sociology of education is at the top position of twenty keywords of published documents. It is essential to indicate here that the total keywords plus (ID) are 1359 and the total authors' keywords (DE) are 4266. However, a similar methodology is used by Gaviria-Marin et al. (2019) to draw the results.

Figure 3. Word Cloud of Author Keywords (2001-2020) The sources of publications are 828 in number including journals and books etc. from 2001 to 2020. It is reported that the 'British Journal of Sociology of Education’ is on the top source of published documents with 79 publications, 1440 citations, 2001 starting year, 36 g_index, and 23 h_index. Similarly, the second position of top twenty sources is taken by ‘International Sociology’ with 39 publications, 201 citations, 2004 starting year, 14 g_index, and 7 h_index. In the same way, ‘Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya' secures the third position among the top twenty sources of publications with 29 publications, 22 citations, 2001 starting year, 4 g_index, and 3 h_index. Differing from it, the source 'Dergisi' is at the bottom of the top twenty sources of published

14 documents with 9 publications, 3 citations, 2005 starting year, 1 g_index, and 1 h_index (see Figure 4, Appendix A). It is significant to mention here that the total sources are 828 in number. The study is aligned with the methodological analysis based on bibliometric analysis by Aparicio et al. (2020) to reach on conclusion.

Figure 4. Published Documents by Top Twenty h-index Sources of Publications (2001-2020) Data indicate that ‘Economic Social Research Council ESRC’ is the top funding agency with 13 published documents that constitute 0.77 percent of the total publication. Similarly, ‘Australian Research Council funding agency secures the second position in the top twenty funding agencies list with 10 publications. Contrary to it, the 'Austrian Science Fund FWF' funding agency is at bottom of the top twenty funding agencies from 2001 to 2020 with two published documents (See Appendix B). It worth mentioning that there are 1088 funding agencies mentioned in the 1698 published documents. Hence, it is asserted that ESRC is the top funding agency for the published documents on the subject under consideration. The bibliometric results are supported by the methodological basis of Goyal and Kumar (2021). In the list of top twenty published documents from 2001 to 2020, a document having the title 'Knowledge in transit’ (ISSN-0021-1753, Vol./No.-95/4) is at the top of the published document list by Secord, JA in 2005 with 535 citations. However, the research document having the title 'Teachers' emotions and teaching: a review of the literature and directions for future research'

(ISSN-1040-726X, Vol./No.-15/4) is at the second position by Sutton, RE and Wheatley, KF in 2003 with 508 citations. On the other hand, document title 'Does geography matter for science- based firms? Epistemic communities and the geography of research and patenting in biotechnology' (ISSN-1047-7039, Vol./No.-18/4) is at bottom of the list by Gittelman, M in 2007 with citation 122 (See Appendix C). It is significant to mention here that there are 9.231 average citations per document and 0.8723 average citations per year per published documents. It is stated that 65108 references are used in the published documents from 2001 to 2020. Further, the bibliometric analysis methodology is supported by the procedures opted in the study of Wankat, Williams, and Neto (2014). Conclusion Our analysis enable us to argued that bibliometric analysis enabled researchers to gain more in- depth insights into the sociology of education and support to recognize variables that were used during research on the subject under consideration. The study was mainly based to evaluate sociology of knowledge, sociology of education, educational sociology, sociology, and education using bibliometric analysis of published documents indexed in Web of Science from 2001 to 2020. It concluded that the topic of sociology of knowledge' was on top with a total number of 849 publications in form of articles in the English language from the United State. Further, the top author's name was Young M and the Dept. Sociology was of the top organizations. The keyword ‘sociology of knowledge' was highly used and the top publications were in the ‘British Journal of Sociology of Education’ and the Economic Social Research Council ESRC as a top funding agency. It is recommended that further bibliometric analysis may be conducted from other databases and using other sociology of education-oriented topics. Limitations of the Study The present bibliometric analysis was based on published documents in the Web of Science only and we did not use other databases. Further, it only focussed to evaluate sociology of knowledge, sociology of education, educational sociology, sociology, and education using bibliometric analysis from 2001 to 2020. Thus, we did not use other related topics that are interlinked with the current study. References Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79(3), 517-539.

Adams, A. L. (2020). Online Teaching Resources. Public Services Quarterly, 16(3), 172-178. doi:10.1080/15228959.2020.1778598 Aparicio, G., Iturralde, T., & Maseda, A. (2020). A holistic bibliometric overview of the student engagement research field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1-18. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2020.1795092 Appleton, L. (2020). Academic Libraries and Student Engagement: A Literature Review. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1-21. doi:10.1080/13614533.2020.1784762 Azonobi, I. N., Uwaifo, S. O., & Tella, A. (2020). Determinants of Postgraduates’ Use of Electronic Information Resources in Federal Universities in Southern Nigeria. International Information & Library Review, 1-14. doi:10.1080/10572317.2020.1783629 Baker, D. R. (1991). On-Line Bibliometric Analysis for Researchers and Educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 27(1), 41-47. doi:10.1080/10437797.1991.10672168 Banks, O. (1982). The sociology of education, 1952–1982. British journal of educational studies, 30(1), 18-31. Brown, T., Ho, Y.-S., & Gutman, S. A. (2019). High Impact and Highly Cited Peer-Reviewed Journal Article Publications by Canadian Occupational Therapy Authors: A Bibliometric Analysis. Occupational Therapy In Health Care, 33(4), 329-354. doi:10.1080/07380577.2019.1633587 Cheng, B., Wang, M., Mørch, A. I., Chen, N.-S., & Spector, J. M. (2014). Research on e-learning in the workplace 2000–2012: a bibliometric analysis of the literature. Educational research review, 11, 56-72. Chidi Nuel-Jean, O., & Okoye, M. O. (2020). Relevance of Libraries and Librarians in Distance Education Programs of Universities in Nigeria. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 1-19. doi:10.1080/1533290X.2020.1806175 Cole, N., & Stenström, C. (2020). The Value of California’s Public Libraries. Public Library Quarterly, 1-23. doi:10.1080/01616846.2020.1816054 Damerchiloo, M., Haghparast, A., Ramezani, A., Zeinali, V., VazifeShenas, N., & Jafari, B. (2020). Impact of the E-Journals of Academic Libraries Consortium on Research Productivity: An Iranian Consortium Experience. Collection Management, 45(3), 235-251. doi:10.1080/01462679.2019.1682738 Dehdarirad, T., Villarroya, A., & Barrios, M. (2015). Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 103(3), 795-812. Earp, V. J. (2010). A Bibliometric Snapshot of The Journal of Higher Education and Its Impact on the Field. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 29(4), 283-295. doi:10.1080/01639269.2010.521034 Farhan, W., & Razmak, J. (2020). A comparative study of an assistive e-learning interface among students with and without visual and hearing impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1-11. doi:10.1080/17483107.2020.1786733 Fejes, A., & Nylander, E. (2014). The Anglophone International (e) a bibliometric analysis of three adult education journals, 2005-2012. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(3), 222-239. Floud, J., & Halsey, A. H. (1958). The Sociology of Education: (With special reference to the development of research in Western Europe and the United States of America). Current Sociology, 7(3), 165-193. Franceschet, M. (2010). The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and in the social sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 55-63.

Gaetjens, S. (2020). Dismal Results from a Print Periodical Usage Study. The Serials Librarian, 79(1-2), 148-152. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2020.1802394 Garrigos-Simon, F. J., Botella-Carrubi, M. D., & Gonzalez-Cruz, T. F. (2018). Social capital, human capital, and sustainability: A bibliometric and visualization analysis. Sustainability, 10(12), 1-19. Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J. M., & Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019). Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 194-220. Goyal, K., & Kumar, S. (2021). Financial literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(1), 80-105. Habiba, U., & Ahmed, S. M. Z. (2020). ICT Infrastructure and Access to Online Services: Determining the Factors Affecting Faculty Satisfaction with University-Subscribed Resources. International Information & Library Review, 1-19. doi:10.1080/10572317.2020.1794204 Hall, C. M. (2011). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management, 32(1), 16-27. Hallinger, P., & Kulophas, D. (2020). The evolving knowledge base on leadership and teacher professional learning: a bibliometric analysis of the literature, 1960-2018. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 521-540. Harlow, S., & Hill, K. (2020). Assessing Library Online Patrons Use of Resources to Improve Outreach and Marketing. The Serials Librarian, 1-28. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2019.1703873 Healy, M., Hammer, S., & McIlveen, P. (2020). Mapping graduate employability and career development in higher education research: a citation network analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 1-13. doi:10.1080/03075079.2020.1804851 Hernández-Torrano, D., & Kuzhabekova, A. (2020). The state and development of research in the field of gifted education over 60 years: A bibliometric study of four gifted education journals (1957–2017). High Ability Studies, 31(2), 133-155. doi:10.1080/13598139.2019.1601071 Ivanov, V., Markusova, V., & Mindeli, L. (2016). Government investments and the publishing activity of higher educational institutions: Bibliometric analysis. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 86(4), 314-321. Ivanović, L., & Ho, Y.-S. (2019). Highly cited articles in the Education and Educational Research category in the Social Science Citation Index: a bibliometric analysis. Educational Review, 71(3), 277-286. doi:10.1080/00131911.2017.1415297 Johns, S. L., & Shonrock, D. D. (2007). Research Strategies. The Serials Librarian, 53(1-2), 211- 230. doi:10.1300/J123v53n01_17 Julia, J., Supriatna, E., Isrokatun, I., Aisyah, I., Hakim, A., & Odebode, A. A. (2020). Moral Education (2010-2019): A Bibliometric Study (Part 2). Online Submission, 8(7), 2954- 2968. Kane, C. M., & Mahoney, M. (2020). Using evidence-based library space planning for long-term student success. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1-10. doi:10.1080/13614533.2020.1785517 Kuzhabekova, A. (2021). Charting the terrain of global research on graduate education: a bibliometric approach. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1-13. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2021.1876219

Lisée, C., Larivière, V., & Archambault, É. (2008). Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1776-1784. Litsey, R., Allen, C., Cassidy, R., DeVet, K. E., & McEniry, M. (2020). Shaping new ideas: A case study on a library developed 3D model service for university instruction. Journal of Access Services, 17(3), 119-129. doi:10.1080/15367967.2020.1741375 Lopes, R. M., Fidalgo-Neto, A. A., & Mota, F. B. (2017). Facebook in educational research: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1591-1621. Macauley, P., Evans, T., Pearson, M., & Tregenza, K. (2005). Using digital data and bibliometric analysis for researching doctoral education. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(2), 189-199. doi:10.1080/07294360500063076 Machovec, G. (2020). Pandemic Impacts on Library Consortia and Their Sustainability. Journal of Library Administration, 60(5), 543-549. doi:10.1080/01930826.2020.1760558 On-Lee, W., & Mak, G. C. L. (2010). From knowledge transfer to knowledge interaction: the development of comparative education in China through the lens of comparative journals. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(6), 761-780. doi:10.1080/03057925.2010.523242 Paudel, P. (2021). Online education: Benefits, challenges and strategies during and after COVID- 19 in higher education. International Journal on Studies in Education, 3(2), 70-85. Peng, R.-Z., Zhu, C., & Wu, W.-P. (2020). Visualizing the knowledge domain of intercultural competence research: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 74, 58-68. Phelan, T., Anderson, D., & Bourke, P. (2000). Educational research in Australia: A bibliometric analysis. The impact of educational research, 573-671. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923-945. Roig-Tierno, N., Gonzalez-Cruz, T. F., & Llopis-Martinez, J. (2017). An overview of qualitative comparative analysis: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(1), 15-23. Shoaib, M., Abdullah, F., & Ali, N. (2020). Library Resources and Research Environment in Higher Education Institutions: Students’ Satisfaction. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1- 18. Shoaib, M., Rasool, D., & Anwar, D. (2021). Evaluating Research Support Facilities to University Students during COVID-19. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 1-18. Tammaro, A. M. (2020). COVID 19 and Libraries in Italy. International Information & Library Review, 52(3), 216-220. Thanuskodi, S. (2010). Journal of Social Sciences: A Bibliometric Study. Journal of Social Sciences, 24(2), 77-80. doi:10.1080/09718923.2010.11892847 Tsay, M.-y. (2011). A bibliometric analysis and comparison on three information science journals: JASIST, IPM, JOD, 1998–2008. Scientometrics, 89(2), 591-606. Vitella, F. (2020). Comics, the library has those: how public libraries can use graphic novels to foster reading communities. Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics, 1-21. doi:10.1080/21504857.2020.1808497 Vogus, B. (2020). Ebooks in Academic Libraries. Public Services Quarterly, 16(3), 182-185. doi:10.1080/15228959.2020.1778599

Wankat, P. C., Williams, B., & Neto, P. (2014). Engineering education research in European Journal of Engineering Education and Journal of Engineering Education: citation and reference discipline analysis. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(1), 7-17. doi:10.1080/03043797.2013.867316 Zawacki-Richter, O., Anderson, T., & Tuncay, N. (2010). The growing impact of open access distance education journals: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Distance Education, 24(3), 54-73.

Appendix A Table 7 Top Twenty Sources of Publications (2001-2020) Sources h_index g_index m_index TC* TP* PY*_Start British Journal of Sociology of Education 23 36 1.095238095 1440 79 2001 International Sociology 7 14 0.388888889 201 39 2004 Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya 3 4 0.142857143 29 22 2001 Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie 9 16 0.428571429 274 21 2001 International Studies in Sociology of 5 10 106 17 2007 Education Human Studies 5 14 0.263157895 203 15 2003 Kolner Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie Und 3 7 0.142857143 53 14 2001 Sozialpsychologie Chinese Education And Society 2 2 0.095238095 5 13 2001 Sociology-The Journal of The British 7 12 0.333333333 213 12 2001 Sociological Association Cultural Sociology 4 7 0.363636364 66 11 2011 Studies in East European Thought 3 4 0.214285714 24 11 2008 Sage Open 2 7 0.222222222 53 10 2013 Berliner Journal Fur Soziologie 2 3 0.117647059 11 9 2005 British Journal of Sociology 6 9 0.3 144 9 2002 Historical Social Research-Historische 4 5 0.25 33 9 2006 Sozialforschung Osterreichische Zeitschrift Fuer 2 2 0.125 9 9 2006 Soziologie Sociological Review 4 9 89 9 2002 Soziale Welt-Zeitschrift Fur Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung Und 3 4 0.142857143 17 9 2001 Praxis Teaching In Higher Education 5 8 72 9 2015 Turkish Journal Of Sociology-Sosyoloji 1 1 0.058823529 3 9 2005 Dergisi TC* = Total Citations, TP* = Total Publications, PY* = Publication Year

Appendix B Table 8 Top Twenty Funding Agencies (2001-2020) Funding agencies TP* % of 1698 Economic Social Research Council ESRC 13 0.766 Australian Research Council 10 0.589 National Institutes of Health NIH USA 10 0.589 United States Department of Health Human Services 10 0.589 NIH Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health Human 9 0.530 Development NICHD German Research Foundation DFG 8 0.471 National Science Foundation NSF 8 0.471 UK Research Innovation UKRI 7 0.412 National Research Foundation South Africa 5 0.294 Swiss National Science Foundation SNSF 5 0.294 Ministry of Education and Science Russian Federation 4 0.236 Arts and Humanities Research Council 3 0.177 European Research Council ERC 3 0.177 European Union EU 3 0.177 NSF Directorate For Social Behavioral Economic Sciences SBE 3 0.177 Russian Foundation For Basic Research RFBR 3 0.177 Wellcome Trust 3 0.177 Australian Government 2 0.118 Austrian Science Fund FWF 2 0.118 TP* = Total Publication

Appendix C Table 9 Top Twenty Journals Articles by Citations (2001-2020) Article title Authors ISSN Vol./No. PY TC Knowledge in transit Secord, JA 0021-1753 95(4) 2004 535 Teachers' emotions and teaching: a review of the literature and Sutton, RE; Wheatley, KF 1040-726X 15(4) 2003 508 directions for future research The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary Moody, J 0003-1224 69(2) 2004 508 cohesion from 1963 to 1999 The myth incarnate: recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited Hallett, T 0003-1224 75(1) 2010 339 institutions in an urban elementary school Toward a neighborhood resource-based theory of social capital for Carpiano, RM 0277-9536 62(1) 2006 297 health: can Bourdieu and sociology help? The Finnish Miracle of Pisa: historical and sociological remarks on Simola, H 0305-0068 41(4) 2005 213 teaching and teacher education Three educational scenarios for the future: lessons from the sociology Young, M; Muller, J 0141-8211 45(1) 2010 191 of knowledge The credit crisis as a problem in the sociology of knowledge MacKenzie, D 0002-9602 116(6) 2011 181 Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate Hegger, D; et. al 1462-9011 18 2012 179 change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action The governance approach to European integration Jachtenfuchs, M 0021-9886 39(2) 2001 171 The status of the material in theories of culture: from social structure Reckwitz, A 0021-8308 32(2) 2002 164 to 'artefacts Fields and institutional strategy: Bourdieu on the relationship Naidoo, R 0142-5692 25(4) 2004 162 between higher education, inequality and society Neighborhood social capital and adult health: an empirical test of a Carpiano, RM 1353-8292 13(3) 2007 148 Bourdieu-based model Repositioning higher education as a global commodity: opportunities Naidoo, R 0142-5692 24(2) 2003 132 and challenges for future sociology of education work Bourdieu in American sociology, 1980-2004 Sallaz, JJ; Zavisca, J 0360-0572 33 2007 128

Article title Authors ISSN Vol./No. PY TC White means never having to say you're ethnic - white youth and the Perry, P 0891-2416 30(1) 2001 126 construction of cultureless identities On the powers of powerful knowledge Young, M; Muller, J 2049-6613 1(3) 2013 124 Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the Bedeian, AG 1537-260X 3(2) 2004 124 management discipline Beyond adolescence-limited criminology: choosing our future-the Cullen, FT 0011-1384 49(2) 2011 123 American society of criminology 2010 Sutherland address Does geography matter for science-based firms? Epistemic communities and the geography of research and patenting in Gittelman, M 1047-7039 18(4) 2007 122 biotechnology TC* = Total Citations, PY* = Publication Year