Empirical Education Research in China(2015—2019) : Characteristics, Trends and Prospects

Zhu Junwen; Ma Yinqi

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.09.002

Volume 38 Issue 9

Sep. 2020

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2020 > 38(9): 16-35

Zhu Junwen, Ma Yinqi. Empirical Education Research in China(2015—2019) : Characteristics, Trends and Prospects[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(9): 16-35. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.09.002

Citation:

Zhu Junwen, Ma Yinqi. Empirical Education Research in China(2015—2019) : Characteristics, Trends and Prospects[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(9): 16-35. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.09.002

Citation:

PDF( 1407 KB)

Empirical Education Research in China(2015—2019) : Characteristics, Trends and Prospects

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.09.002

Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China

Available Online: 2020-09-14
Publish Date: 2020-09-01

Abstract

Abstract

Since the establishment and organization of the National Educational Empirical Research Forum for five consecutive years, the number of participants has been growing. Does the prosperity of academic exchanges mean that empirical methods are more and more widely used in educational research in China? Which institutions, scholars and fields is empirical research more widely used in? In response to the above questions, the study selected 15 high-level educational journals as samples based on the empirical research on clearly defined education, and conducted a bibliometric analysis of 3808 papers published between 2015 and 2019.The result shows that in the past five years, empirical research on education in China continues to grow and is more widely used. However, there is still a huge gap compared with the universal use in developed countries. The number of empirical research papers published by normal universities is larger than that of other institutions, and the proportion of empirical research papers in the total number is growing rapidly, but it is at the lowest level of different types of institutions. In the empirical studies on education, more than half of the papers were co-completed by multiple institutions, and the proportion of papers published independently decreased from 63.4% to 57.8%, while the proportion of co-published papers increased by 5.6 percentage. The core authors of the empirical study on education are getting younger. More than half of the core authors of empirical studies on education in the past five years have interdisciplinary backgrounds other than pedagogy. From the perspective of the changes in the professional background distribution of the annual core authors, the proportion of interdisciplinary authors continues to rise. In the past five years, the subjects of empirical research on education have been rich and diverse, with obvious differences among different types of institutions. For the future development of empirical research on education in China, we believe that in view of the dominant position of normal universities in education research, the acceleration of empirical transformation will fundamentally change the paradigm of education research in China. Collaborative research across disciplines and institutions will continue to grow and advance empirical research in education. Young scholars' preference for empirical research on education will become the endogenous driving force to promote empirical transformation. Comprehensively promoting international cooperation in scientific research will help accelerate the transformation of empirical research on education in China.
- education,
- empirical research,
- bibliometrics,
- trend

FullText(HTML)

References(50)

References

[1]	曾荣光, 罗云, 叶菊艳. (2018). 寻找实证研究的意义: 比较—历史视域中的实证主义之争. <italic>北京大学教育评论</italic>,16(03),104−131.
[2]	陈向明. (2000). 质的研究方法与社会科学研究. 北京: 教育科学出版社.
[3]	程方鹏. (2019). 教育管理学研究方法发展历程回顾与体系建构. 金华: 浙江师范大学硕士学位论文.
[4]	程建坤, 陈婧. (2017). 教育实证研究: 历程、现状和走向. <italic>华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)</italic>, (03),150−158.
[5]	程天君. (2014). 从“纯粹主义”到“实用主义”——教育社会学研究方法论的新动向. <italic>教育研究与实验</italic>, (01),5−12.
[6]	丁洁. (2005). 我国高等教育现行研究方法分析. <italic>高教探索</italic>, (04),77−80. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9760.2005.04.026
[7]	何文明. (2009). 职业教育研究方法的现状分析——以2008年人大复印报刊资料《职业技术教育》为例. <italic>江苏技术师范学院学报: 职教通讯</italic>, (04),14−19+23.
[8]	胡来林, 安玉洁. (2006). 近十年来我国教育技术学研究方法的回顾与反思. <italic>电化教育研究</italic>, (02),14−17+38.
[9]	华东师范大学. (2017). 加强教育实证研究, 华东师范大学行动宣言发布. <italic>教育学报</italic>, (01),129-129.
[10]	李刚, 王红蕾. (2016). 混合方法研究的方法论与实践尝试: 共识、争议与反思. <italic>华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)</italic>,34(04),98−105.
[11]	李小霞. (2005). 近年来国内洛特卡定律研究综述. <italic>科技情报开发与经济</italic>, (13),27−28.
[12]	林聚任, 刘玉安. (2004). 社会科学研究方法. 济南: 山东人民出版社.
[13]	刘晶波, 等. (2008). 1996—2006年我国学前教育领域研究方法的运用状况与分析——基于三所高校硕士、博士学位论文的研究. <italic>学前教育研究</italic>, (10),15−23.
[14]	刘润泽, 巩宜萱. (2020). 回顾与反思: 定量研究在公共管理学科的滥用. <italic>公共管理学报</italic>,17(01),152−158.
[15]	陆根书, 刘萍, 陈晨, 等. (2016). 中外教育研究方法比较——基于国内外九种教育研究期刊的实证分析. <italic>高等教育研究</italic>,37(10),55−65.
[16]	欧力同. (1987). 孔德及其实证主义. 上海: 上海社会科学院出版社.
[17]	司莉, 陈金铭, 马天怡, 等. (2019). 近五年我国图书情报学研究方法应用与演化的实证研究——基于5种期刊的统计分析. <italic>图书馆</italic>, (06),15−21+42. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1558.2019.06.003
[18]	田虎伟. (2007). 高等教育研究博士学位论文中研究方法的调查分析. <italic>学位与研究生教育</italic>, (08),31−37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-960X.2007.08.007
[19]	王春丽, 顾小清. (2015). 形成基于证据的教育研究文化——“全国首届教育实证研究论坛”综述. <italic>中国远程教育</italic>, (12),5−11.
[20]	沃野. (1998). 论实证主义及其方法论的变化和发展. <italic>学术研究</italic>, (07),3−5.
[21]	亚历山大. (2008). 社会学的理论逻辑(第一卷)(于晓等译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[22]	姚计海, 王喜雪. (2013). 近十年来我国教育研究方法的分析与反思. <italic>教育研究</italic>,34(03),20−24+73.
[23]	叶澜. (2014). 教育研究方法论初探. 上海: 上海教育出版社.
[24]	袁振国. (2017). 实证研究是教育学走向科学的必要途径. <italic>华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)</italic>, (03),4−17.
[25]	赵苁蓉. (2010). 2000年以来我国高等教育学博士学位论文文献计量分析. 苏州: 苏州大学硕士学位论文.
[26]	郑日昌, 崔丽霞. (2001). 二十年来我国教育研究方法的回顾与反思. <italic>教育研究</italic>, (06),17−21.
[27]	周晓亮. (2003). 西方近代认识论论纲: 理性主义与经验主义. <italic>哲学研究</italic>, (10),48−53.
[28]	朱志勇. (2005). 教育研究方法论范式与方法的反思. <italic>教育研究与实验</italic>, (01),7−12.
[29]	Angrist, J., Azoulay, P., Ellison, G., Hill, R., & Lu, S. F. (2017). Economic research evolves: Fields and styles. <italic>The American Economic Review</italic>, 107(5), 293−297. doi: 10.1257/aer.p20171117
[30]	Bryan, C., Lysandra, C. (2008). Nonexperimental quantitative research and its role in guiding instruction. <italic>Intervention in School and Clinic</italic>, 44(2), 98−104. doi: 10.1177/1053451208321565
[31]	Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
[32]	Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. <italic>The Leadership Quarterly</italic>, 25(1), 36−62. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
[33]	Fraenkel, J. K., Wallen, N. E., Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (9^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
[34]	Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., Airasiam, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis(10^th ed). New York: Pearson.
[35]	Hider, P., & Pymm, B. (2008). Empirical research methods reported in high-profile LIS journal literature. <italic>Library and Information Science Research</italic>, 30(2), 108−114. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2007.11.007
[36]	Hoy, W. K. (2010). Quantitative research in education: A primer. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
[37]	Johnson, B., Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4^th ed). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
[38]	Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. <italic>Educational Researcher</italic>, 33(7), 14−26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014
[39]	Long, H. Y. (2014). An empirical review of research methodologies and methods in creativity studies (2003—2012). <italic>Creativity Research Journal</italic>, 26(4), 427−438. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2014.961781
[40]	Lund, T. (2005). A metamodel of central inferences in empirical research. <italic>Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research</italic>, 49(4), 385−398. doi: 10.1080/00313830500202918
[41]	Merriam, S. B., Associates. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (1^st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[42]	Mertler, C. A. (2009). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom(2^nd ed). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
[43]	Mishra, R. C. (2013). Encyclopedia of educational research: Exploring educational research (Vol. IV). New Delhi: A. P. H. Publishing Corporation.
[44]	Phillips, D. C. (2010). The contested nature of empirical educational research (and why philosophy of education offers little help). <italic>Journal of Philosophy of Education</italic>, 39(4), 577−597. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2005.00457.x
[45]	Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. E. (2016). Introduction to research methods in education. <italic>Technology & Health Care Official Journal of the European Society for Engineering & Medicine</italic>, 13(4), 331.
[46]	Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
[47]	Schreiber, J. B., Asner-Self, K. (2011). Educational research: The interrelationship of questions, sampling, design, and analysis. New York: John Wiley&Sons, Inc.
[48]	Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. <italic>Educational Researcher</italic>, 15(1), 4−12. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015001004
[49]	Wallen, N. E., Fraenkel, J. R. (2001). Educational research: A guide to the process (2^nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[50]	Zhu, M., Sari, A., & Lee, M. M. (2018). A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical Mooc literature (2014—2016). <italic>The Internet and Higher Education</italic>, 37, 31−39. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002