View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Evolving Mechanisms of Shadow Education Research

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Evolving Mechanisms of Shadow Education Research
Language: English
Authors: Li Jun, Wang Weilin (ORCID 0000-0002-1708-1164)
Source: European Journal of Education. 2024 59(3).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Educational Research, Educational Trends, Authors, Publications, Global Approach, Tutoring, Private Education, Supplementary Education
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12646
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Shadow education has burgeoned into a global phenomenon, and over the last 30 years, a substantial body of literature has emerged to explore this trend. Drawing on bibliometric data from 377 articles retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS), this study investigates the evolving landscape of shadow education research. It examines historical publication trends through performance analysis, intellectual sources and evolving themes using co-citation analysis, complemented by co-word analysis. Major authors and collaboration dynamics are discerned through co-authorship analysis, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of collaborative networks. Additionally, the study constructs an evolution path for shadow education research published in journals, employing citation analysis supplemented by social network analysis methods. In conclusion, the study not only illuminates the historical trajectory of shadow education as a concept but also poses pertinent questions and offers recommendations for future research. Our research significantly contributes to the comprehension of how shadow education has evolved from a nascent concept into a global research discourse.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1434693
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH0sFi6VJSd4ejghLEi1lURAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKRhs0rKMIQqSycTnQIBEICBm4jPVFloasLF-NMY8yBtXPgIzn5meVxUVz5pntXfSmtByY7ktzfNZJ-QYX2qRLLuPa8BNZkAW7TLTPvdRZJa3wKeLdwT2n31PRcAkpUmUpqlXkqfwvB5Z8mow90Qth91I4P9sfpkDv43D36Y9VfHwzEErgNw4xAmCdlOn59DKUhEChV7K1bP9Fkx6n3Jg9-5t0fL3Lq42cN6jYOh
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178882242;eje01sep.24;2024Aug09.05:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178882242-1">A bibliometric analysis of the evolving mechanisms of shadow education research </title> <p>Shadow education has burgeoned into a global phenomenon, and over the last 30 years, a substantial body of literature has emerged to explore this trend. Drawing on bibliometric data from 377 articles retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS), this study investigates the evolving landscape of shadow education research. It examines historical publication trends through performance analysis, intellectual sources and evolving themes using co‐citation analysis, complemented by co‐word analysis. Major authors and collaboration dynamics are discerned through co‐authorship analysis, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of collaborative networks. Additionally, the study constructs an evolution path for shadow education research published in journals, employing citation analysis supplemented by social network analysis methods. In conclusion, the study not only illuminates the historical trajectory of shadow education as a concept but also poses pertinent questions and offers recommendations for future research. Our research significantly contributes to the comprehension of how shadow education has evolved from a nascent concept into a global research discourse.</p> <p>Keywords: bibliometric analysis; network analysis; research evolution; shadow education</p> <hd id="AN0178882242-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Known as shadow education in academia, private supplementary tutoring has become a worldwide phenomenon since the 1980s. It usually indicates academic fee‐paid tutoring administered outside schools (Kobakidze & Suter, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref1">54</reflink>]). Within societies valuing formal education (Mori & Baker, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref2">65</reflink>]), an increasing number of families are investing in private tutoring to enhance their children's educational outcomes (Kim & Jung, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]). Baker ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]) forecasts a continual and widespread escalation of private tutoring in the near future. The expansion of shadow education has significant cultural, economic, political and social implications for our societies. On the positive side, it creates opportunities for students to cultivate learning interests and improve efficiency (Kim & Jung, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref5">52</reflink>]). On the negative side, it imposes learning burdens on students and financial burdens on parents (Kim & Park, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref6">50</reflink>]), generates corruption (Kobakhidze, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref7">53</reflink>]), demoralizes mainstream education (Bray & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>]) and erodes social equality (Długosz, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref9">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Since the 1990s, many scholars have researched shadow education in different sociocultural contexts from diverse perspectives (Aurini et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]; Bray, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]; Holloway & Pimlott‐Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref13">43</reflink>]; Park et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref14">67</reflink>]). However, meta‐analysis on shadow education research is lacking, though there are a few exceptions (Bray, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]; Hajar & Karakus, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref16">41</reflink>]; Luo & Chan, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref17">62</reflink>]; Manzon & Areepattamannil, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref18">63</reflink>]; Zhang & Bray, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref19">85</reflink>]). In a recent bibliometric analysis, Hajar and Karakus ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref20">41</reflink>]) mapped the general features of shadow education research, including core literature, major contributors, publications and limitations. Drawing some experience from this work, we take a more dynamic analysis of the literature. Grounded on data retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS), this study goes a further step by using social network analysis techniques to supplement the bibliometric methods to explore evolving features of shadow education in the literature. More specifically, it documents the historical output trending, explores evolving research themes in shadow education research, investigates collaboration network dynamics among scholars and constructs the major evolution path of citation relationships among journal articles. Our study contributes to the literature by analysing how shadow education evolved from a nascent concept to a global research discourse. Investigating the evolving mechanisms of shadow education research is significant because it may identify problems in this research field and provide valuable guidance to inform emergent researchers and expand shadow education research in the future. Yet, we fully recognize that using data from Web of Science alone may ignore the contribution of classical literature, non‐journal articles and non‐English literature.</p> <p>The remaining part of the paper unfolds in the following steps. First, it briefly introduces the methodology, followed by a description of the data and sample. Then, it presents performance analysis, co‐citation analysis supplemented by co‐word analysis, co‐authorship analysis and co‐citation analysis to serve the research aims mentioned above. Finally, this paper concludes with the limitations of current shadow education research and recommendations for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0178882242-3">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p>This study conducts a bibliometric analysis of publications on SE. Bibliometric indicators are diverse. Following the guidelines provided by Donthu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>]), we employ performance analysis, co‐word analysis, co‐citation analysis, citation analysis and co‐authorship analysis, supplemented by social network analysis techniques, to serve our research aims mentioned in the introduction section. Figure 1 describes the process of analysis.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01sep24/ejed12646-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12646-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Framework for analysis." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Performance analysis pictures the general historical evolution of shadow education research, through which essential stages and their relevant features are identified. Co‐citation analysis aims to explore the intellectual origins of shadow education in the extant literature and the linkages between shadow education research and other research areas (Walter & Ribière, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref22">81</reflink>]). Co‐citation occurs when two documents cite the same third document. It is frequently used to measure conceptual proximity, premised on the assumption that if publications are cited frequently in another same publication, they are closely related (Small, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref23">75</reflink>]). Our co‐citation matrix is based on the count of co‐citations in the documents in the sample. The higher the co‐citation count, the closer the two documents are considered to be related (Sanguri et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref24">72</reflink>]). The matrix is created and imported into Gephi, an open‐source software widely used for social network analysis. Supplemented by co‐word analysis, we explore how major research themes have evolved chronologically.</p> <p>Then, we perform co‐authorship analysis to identify major authors and dynamics in SER collaboration networks since social science research more and more relies on collaboration among scholars (Fu et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref25">40</reflink>]). By scrutinizing key collaboration networks, we draw on the experience of some scholars. This analysis may assist some scholars in identifying potential collaboration networks.</p> <p>However, performance analysis and co‐citation analysis cannot reveal the evolutionary path of shadow education research published in journals explicitly, so we use citation analysis to address the limitation. Citation analysis examines publications' links to other works. When one publication cites another, an intellectual linkage is built (Appio et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>]). Though there are many measures to determine the importance of a publication, many scholars argue that the greater the number of citations a publication receives, the greater its impact (Stremersch et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref27">78</reflink>]). There are two major measures of citation. The Global Citation Score (GCS) measures the total number of citations to a paper in the Web of Science Core Collection. The Local Citation Score (LCS) describes the count of citations to a paper within our sample. Using HistCite, a popular citation analysis tool, we present the citation network chronologically and reconstruct the major evolutionary path of SER based on the major publications' in‐degree and betweenness measures.</p> <hd id="AN0178882242-5">DATA AND SAMPLE</hd> <p>We performed bibliographic searches using the keyword "shadow education" and its variations (Zhang & Bray, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref28">85</reflink>]), including "private tutoring", "supplementary tutoring", "private tuition", "outside school education", "extracurricular training" and "coaching", in Web of Science to trace down publications that contained these searching words in their titles, abstracts and/or keywords. We added such variations to include as many articles for further selection as possible. Yet, we strictly followed the widely accepted definition of shadow education to exclude irrelevant articles. The definition was proposed by Bray's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]) seminal book that presented the first global study of the shadow education phenomenon (also see Luo & Chan, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref30">62</reflink>]). Bray's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref31">9</reflink>]) three parameters to delineate shadow education are as follows (p. 20):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> supplementation: tutoring that addressed subjects already covered in school and excluding, for example, classes for minority children whose families were anxious that new generations should secure competence in languages not taught in mainstream schools;</item> <p></p> <item> privateness: tutoring provided in exchange for a fee, in contrast to both unpaid tutoring provided by families or community members and extra tutoring provided by teachers as part of their professional commitments and responsibilities; and</item> <p></p> <item> academic subjects: particularly languages, mathematics and other examinable subjects, and excluding musical, artistic or sporting skills, which are learned primarily for pleasure and/or for more rounded personal development.</item> </ulist> <p>Then, we retrieved author name(s), author affiliation(s), subject category(ies), journal name(s), publication title(s), the publication year(s) of each publication and the references cited for further analysis.</p> <p>In total, 1108 publications were identified before September 4th, 2021. After reading the titles and abstracts, we categorized publications into three types: irrelevant ones, relevant ones and unclear ones. The irrelevant ones were publications whose research focuses were not shadow‐education‐related topics, while the relevant ones directly focused on shadow‐education‐related topics. Unclear ones were publications whose titles and abstracts did not clearly state their relevance to shadow education. We downloaded the unclear ones and read them until they were labelled either relevant or irrelevant. Finally, we got 377 relevant articles from Web of Science as the sample for analysis. We name our sample as Web of Science Local Collection (WLC).</p> <hd id="AN0178882242-6">HISTORICAL PUBLICATION OUTPUT TREND OF SER</hd> <p>We first picture the evolution of shadow education research using performance analysis. Our sample has a total of 377 published articles. Since 1988, 527 authors have contributed to SER, and publication has been active since the year 1999. The sample articles receive a total of 4258 citations, or 11.30 per article.</p> <p>Based on the descriptive data of the number of citations, we can picture the historical trend of shadow education research. The articles published per year and cumulatively published articles of shadow education research in our sample are shown in Figure 2, represented by the blue and red lines, respectively. The red curve of cumulative articles resembles the exponential trend (Price, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref32">69</reflink>]), so we infer that shadow education research is still in the developing stage.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01sep24/ejed12646-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12646-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Historical trend of publication output in WOS." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The evolution of shadow education research can be divided into three stages. The first stage was 1988–2003, the introductory period. There were only 12 articles in total, and the average output per year was less than one. In this period, the concept of SE emerged in a study on students' transition into universities in Japan (Stevenson & Baker, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref33">77</reflink>]). Also in this period, Bray's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref34">9</reflink>]) book problematized and highlighted SE as a global phenomenon. However, in some years, there were no publications, indicating a lack of scholastic attention toward the SE.</p> <p>The second stage was 2004–2009, a slow developing period. The annual output during these five years was 4.6 articles, much more than that of the first period. However, scholars mainly researched SE from the socioeconomic perspective (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>]; Bray & Kwok, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]; Dang, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]; Dang & Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref38">33</reflink>]; Tansel & Bircan, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref39">79</reflink>]), though a few scholars explored the topic from other angles (Aurini & Davies, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]; Bray, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]; Davies, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref42">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>The third stage is 2010 to present, a period of fast growth. The research output rose dramatically, with more than 80% of the total cumulative output produced. Shadow education research was conducted within diverse social contexts using a more theoretical lens and methodological tools. More patterns and themes of shadow education emerged in literature, making shadow education research a more inclusive discourse (Manzon & Areepattamannil, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref43">63</reflink>]). In 2020, the annual output reached its peak with 56 articles.</p> <p>To summarize, the growth of shadow education publication records corresponds to the increasing salience of shadow education in many societies around the globe (Entrich & Lauterbach, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref44">39</reflink>]). This growth trend can be understood in the broader context of the universalization of education. In the same way that the shadow cast by a sundial contains information about the time of day, shadow education can give the observers information about the features of mainstream education (Bray, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]; Bray & Lykins, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>]). Data from worldbank.org suggest that since 1988 around the globe, the literate rate of adults aged 15 or above has increased from 73.661% to 86.682%, while the gross higher education enrolment rate has risen from 13.286% to 40.224%. Therefore, the schooled society culture (Mori & Baker, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref47">65</reflink>]) may have provided the basic context for using shadow education, which stimulated shadow education research in return.</p> <hd id="AN0178882242-8">THE INTELLECTUAL SOURCES OF AND EVOLVING THEMES IN SHADOW EDUCATION RESEARCH</hd> <p>Co‐citation analysis is employed to explore the intellectual origins of SE. It is an analytical tool usually focusing on highly cited publications (Donthu et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref48">38</reflink>]). As there are no agreed selection criteria for co‐citation analysis (Liu & Mei, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref49">61</reflink>]), we use the total citations of the cited references as the impact factor index to identify core literature in our study. Using 24 local collection scores as a threshold (publications cited at least 24 times in our sample), forty core publications were identified in Table 1, which forms the source of knowledge for shadow education research.</p> <p>1 TABLE 40 core pieces of literature on shadow education research.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Author and year</th><th align="left">Journal or book name</th><th align="left">Source of knowledge</th><th align="left">Methodology</th><th align="left">LCS</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2009</xref>)</td><td align="left">Confronting the Shadow Education System: What Government Policies for What Private Tutoring?</td><td align="left">Education Policy/Education Inequality</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">128</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">1999</xref>)</td><td align="left">The Shadow Education System: Private Tutoring and Its Implications for Planners</td><td align="left">Education Policy/Education Inequality</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">117</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Stevenson and Baker (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">1992</xref>)</td><td align="left">American Journal of Sociology</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">103</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">Baker et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2001</xref>)</td><td align="left">Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis</td><td align="left">Education Policy/Education Evaluation</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">Bray and Kwok (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2003</xref>)</td><td align="left">Economics of Education Review</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Mixed</td><td align="left">74</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Bray and Lykins (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2012</xref>)</td><td align="left">Shadow Education: Private Supplementary Tutoring and Its Implications for Policy Makers in Asia</td><td align="left">Education Policy/Education Inequality</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">69</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">Dang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2007</xref>)</td><td align="left">Economics of Education Review</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">66</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Tansel and Bircan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79">2006</xref>)</td><td align="left">Economics of Education Review</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">63</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">Dang and Rogers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2008</xref>)</td><td align="left">The World Bank Research Observer</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">58</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Buchmann et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">Social Forces</td><td align="left">Education Inequality/Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">53</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">Kim and Lee (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">Economic Development and Cultural Change</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2006</xref>)</td><td align="left">Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education</td><td align="left">Education Inequality</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">48</td></tr><tr><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2011</xref>)</td><td align="left">The Challenge of Shadow Education: Private Tutoring and its Implications for Policy Makers in the European Union</td><td align="left">Education Policy/Education Inequality</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">47</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14</td><td align="left">Dawson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">Asia Pacific Education Review</td><td align="left">Education Inequality</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">45</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15</td><td align="left">Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">Asia Pacific Education Review</td><td align="left">Research Methodology</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">16</td><td align="left">Silova and Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">2006</xref>)</td><td align="left">Education in a Hidden Marketplace: Monitoring of Private Tutoring</td><td align="left">Education Policy/Comparative Education</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">17</td><td align="left">Davies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2004</xref>)</td><td align="left">American Journal of Education</td><td align="left">Education and Society</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">40</td></tr><tr><td align="left">18</td><td align="left">Mori and Baker (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">Asia Pacific Education Review</td><td align="left">Education and Society</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">37</td></tr><tr><td align="left">19</td><td align="left">Silova (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education</td><td align="left">Education Policy/Comparative Education</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">37</td></tr><tr><td align="left">20</td><td align="left">Liu (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2012</xref>)</td><td align="left">International Journal of Educational Development</td><td align="left">Education Inequality</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">36</td></tr><tr><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">Zhang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86">2013</xref>)</td><td align="left">Economics of Education Review</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">36</td></tr><tr><td align="left">22</td><td align="left">Ireson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2004</xref>)</td><td align="left">London Review of Education</td><td align="left">Education Evaluation</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">35</td></tr><tr><td align="left">23</td><td align="left">Zhan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">2013</xref>)</td><td align="left">Asia Pacific Education Review</td><td align="left">Education Evaluation</td><td align="left">Mixed</td><td align="left">35</td></tr><tr><td align="left">24</td><td align="left">Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2003</xref>)</td><td align="left">Adverse Effects of Private Supplementary Tutoring: Dimensions, Implications, and Government Responses</td><td align="left">Education Evaluation</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">34</td></tr><tr><td align="left">25</td><td align="left">Baker and LeTendre (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2005</xref>)</td><td align="left">National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and The Future of Schooling</td><td align="left">Education and Society</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">26</td><td align="left">Mischo and Haag (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">2002</xref>)</td><td align="left">European Journal of Psychology of Education</td><td align="left">Educational Psychology</td><td align="left">Quasi‐experiment</td><td align="left">33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">27</td><td align="left">Bray and Kwo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2014</xref>)</td><td align="left">Regulating Private Tutoring for Public Good</td><td align="left">Education Inequality</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">28</td><td align="left">Hamid et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2009</xref>)</td><td align="left">Tesol Quarterly</td><td align="left">Applied Linguistics</td><td align="left">Mixed</td><td align="left">32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">29</td><td align="left">Aurini (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2004</xref>)</td><td align="left">Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology</td><td align="left">Entrepreneurialism</td><td align="left">Qualitative</td><td align="left">31</td></tr><tr><td align="left">30</td><td align="left">Bray et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2014</xref>)</td><td align="left">Economics of Education Review</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">29</td></tr><tr><td align="left">31</td><td align="left">Park et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2016</xref>)</td><td align="left">Annual Review of Sociology</td><td align="left">Education and Society</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">29</td></tr><tr><td align="left">32</td><td align="left">Kuan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2011</xref>)</td><td align="left">Comparative Education Review</td><td align="left">Comparative Education</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">27</td></tr><tr><td align="left">33</td><td align="left">Buchmann (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2002</xref>)</td><td align="left">Schooling and Social Capital in Diverse Cultures</td><td align="left">Education and Society/Social Capital</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">34</td><td align="left">Nath (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">2008</xref>)</td><td align="left">Educational Studies</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">35</td><td align="left">Park et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">2011</xref>)</td><td align="left">Sociology of Education</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">36</td><td align="left">Zhang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2014</xref>)</td><td align="left">Asia Pacific Journal of Education</td><td align="left">Education and Society/Social Power</td><td align="left">Mixed</td><td align="left">26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">37</td><td align="left">Aurini et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2013</xref>)</td><td align="left">Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education</td><td align="left">Comparative Education</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">25</td></tr><tr><td align="left">38</td><td align="left">Lee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">Asia Pacific Education Review</td><td align="left">Education Policy/Education History</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">25</td></tr><tr><td align="left">39</td><td align="left">Biswal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">1999</xref>)</td><td align="left">The Journal of Policy Reform</td><td align="left">Education Economics</td><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="left">24</td></tr><tr><td align="left">40</td><td align="left">Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2017</xref>)</td><td align="left">Comparative Education Review</td><td align="left">Comparative Education</td><td align="left">Review</td><td align="left">24</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>After a close examination of these publications, we found all of them directly focused on shadow education, none of which comes from other distinctive research fields. Since co‐citation analysis is based on literature co‐cited by our sample, this suggests shadow education research is only loosely coupled with other research traditions. As shown in Table 1, the Bray ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]) book ranks first with the highest local citation score, having been cited 128 times within our sample, accounting for 34.7% of the total. Our further reading reveals that the book is a follow‐up version of the Bray ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref51">9</reflink>]) book, which has been cited 117 times within the sample. The year 1999 book proposes a concrete definition of shadow education that has popularized the shadow metaphor and is widely recognized in academia (e.g. Javadi & Kazemirad, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref52">48</reflink>]; Luo & Chan, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref53">62</reflink>]; Roche, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref54">70</reflink>]). Before Bray ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref55">9</reflink>]), there were only some sporadic studies on the topic (e.g. Hussein, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref56">45</reflink>]; Rohlen, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref57">71</reflink>]; Stevenson & Baker, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref58">77</reflink>]). However, these studies focus on single countries. It is Bray's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref59">9</reflink>]) book followed up by Bray's ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>]) version that presents the first global comparative study of the phenomenon. Therefore, Bray's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]) book is the foundational book in shadow education research.</p> <p>In total, 12 publications in Table 1 studied economic issues related to education (education economics), including the demand for, the financing and provision of and the comparative effectiveness of shadow education, forming the dominant intellectual sources of shadow education research. Next to education economics are education inequality and education policy. The logic behind such research interests is interpreted as follows: shadow education is primarily an educational service purchased by consumers, so shadow education research is naturally following the socioeconomic research tradition. The purchasing power of different social classes may result in educational inequality and thus have relevant policy implications (Entrich & Lauterbach, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref62">39</reflink>]). As an education commodity, its demand and effectiveness also interest scholars. In summary, we find that socioeconomic status, social inequality, education policy, demand for shadow education and effectiveness of shadow education are the most common themes of shadow education research. Considering that private tutoring has developed into a major profitable industry in some countries, it needs more research from commercial and entrepreneurial perspectives (Holloway & Pimlott‐Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref63">44</reflink>]) to expand the influence of this research field.</p> <p>We use co‐word analysis to further explore how themes of shadow education research have evolved historically. This analysis technique assumes that words frequently appearing together have a thematic relationship. Using VOSviewer, a software specialized in visualizing bibliometric networks, we create the co‐word network in Figure 3. Each node represents a keyword with a minimal occurrence of 4 times. The more occurrences of a node, the larger its size. Each edge stands for the co‐occurrence(s) of two nodes. The more co‐occurrences, the thicker the edge. The colour of each node indicates its average publication year, as suggested by the colour bar on the bottom right of the figure.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01sep24/ejed12646-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12646-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 The overlay visualization of co‐word network of keywords." /> </p> <p></p> <p>As mentioned earlier, there was only a paucity of shadow education literature before 2010, so most keywords appeared after the year. Implicated by the colour, academic performance (achievement), demand for schooling, propensity score matching, etc., were earlier researched topics before 2014, while English private tutoring, tracking and instructional quality are more recent focuses for inquiry. Geographically, Japan and South Korea are focal countries of shadow education research for earlier inquiry, but the momentum has shifted to less developed countries like India, Cambodia, Bangladesh and China.</p> <p>The keywords used by authors indicate the central themes of an article, so they can be used to examine the actual content of publications. In total, there are 771 author keywords in our sample. Findings suggest that academic performance and achievement (21 in total) are the central concerns of the inquiry. Other major themes include education policy, comparative education and expenditures. Shadow education research focuses more on secondary education than primary education or higher education. East Asia is the most researched area, and English is the most‐researched subject.</p> <hd id="AN0178882242-10">DYNAMICS IN SHADOW EDUCATION RESEARCH COLLABORATION NETWORKS</hd> <p>Collaboration is a major mechanism to foster the development of the research field. We construct the collaboration network of scholars based on their co‐authorship and calculate three centrality measures (the degree centrality, the betweenness centrality and the closeness centrality) of each scholar. In our sample, the number of nodes is 527, representing the total authors in the WOS location collection, and the number of edges is 530, indicating 530 pairs of cooperation.</p> <p>With Gephi, we calculate the centrality measures of the authors in Table 2. Three centrality measures reflect the relative influence of individual nodes within the network (Cherven, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref64">30</reflink>]). The degree of centrality examines the number (or proportion) of other nodes linked to a specific node, either through inbound, outbound, or undirected connections. The larger the number is, the more co‐authorship there is with other researchers. Betweenness centrality measures the number of occurrences a node appears on the shortest path between other nodes. The larger the number is, the more bridging functions a scholar has. Closeness centrality scores the proximity of a selected node to all other nodes within the graph. A node with strong closeness centrality would typically have very short paths to all other nodes within the network. The larger the number is, the more people can be connected to a scholar directly or indirectly. Again, Mark Bray leads within shadow education research cooperation networks because all his three centrality measures rank at the top.</p> <p>2 TABLE Top 10 authors measured by each centrality score in the co‐authorship networks.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">The degree centrality</th><th align="left">The betweenness centrality</th><th align="left">The closeness centrality</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">BRAY_M</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">BRAY_M</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000826</td><td align="left">BRAY_M</td><td align="char" char=".">0.024974</td></tr><tr><td align="left">GUILL_K</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">GUILL_K</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000344</td><td align="left">GUILL_K</td><td align="char" char=".">0.019170</td></tr><tr><td align="left">KIM_H</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">PARK_H</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000145</td><td align="left">WANG_D</td><td align="char" char=".">0.016649</td></tr><tr><td align="left">RUDENKO_IV</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">WANG_D</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000116</td><td align="left">ZHANG_W</td><td align="char" char=".">0.016649</td></tr><tr><td align="left">ERDYNEEVA_KG</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">ZHANG_W</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000116</td><td align="left">LIU_JY</td><td align="char" char=".">0.016649</td></tr><tr><td align="left">BLINOV_LV</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">LIU_JY</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000116</td><td align="left">KWO_O</td><td align="char" char=".">0.016160</td></tr><tr><td align="left">BLINOVA_LN</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">MAHMUD_R</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000116</td><td align="left">ZHAN_SL</td><td align="char" char=".">0.016160</td></tr><tr><td align="left">ROGOVA_AV</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">CHAN_C</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000116</td><td align="left">LYKINS_C</td><td align="char" char=".">0.016160</td></tr><tr><td align="left">AKHMETOVA_MN</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">BUCHMANN_C</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000101</td><td align="left">KOBAKHIDZE_MN</td><td align="char" char=".">0.016160</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SOSNOVSKY_IZ</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">KIM_H</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000087</td><td align="left">MAHMUD_R</td><td align="char" char=".">0.015262</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To identify core clusters in the collaboration network, we employed the <emph>k</emph>‐core decomposition to identify the densest parts of the co‐authorship network because it could prune a process that recursively removes the nodes having degrees less than <emph>k</emph>, leaving the most connected nodes from the original network (Kong et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref65">55</reflink>]). When the <emph>k</emph> value reached 4, 82 nodes with 189 edges remained in 15 critical co‐authorship networks, as shown in Figure 4.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01sep24/ejed12646-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12646-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Core subnetworks of co‐authorship of shadow education research at the K‐core value of 4." /> </p> <p></p> <p>An edge between two nodes (authors) indicates a co‐authorship between them. The <emph>K</emph>‐core value of 4 means an author has co‐authored with a minimum of 4 others. The strength of an edge implies the number of times two authors have co‐operated. In Figure 6, we identify one key sub‐network consisting of 11 nudes with high co‐authorship strength at the left upper part of the whole graph. The leading person in this sub‐network is Mark Bray, as indicated by his centrality measures. Then, what valuable experience can we learn from him? Using information from Google Scholar and the University of Hong Kong website, we found that many of Bray's co‐operators used to be either his colleagues or his PhD students. It can be concluded that Bray not only works productively by himself but also influences SER development through continuous collaboration with other scholars, his associates and his students.</p> <hd id="AN0178882242-12">THE MAJOR EVOLUTION PATH OF SHADOW EDUCATION RESEARCH CITATION NETWORKS</hd> <p>HistCite was used to map the historic evolution of shadow education research based on citation relationships among articles in WOS local collection. The data generated by HistCite was then imported into Gephi for further analysis to portray the major evolutionary path of shadow education research. Figure 5 is the historiograph of the citation network for shadow education research. A historiograph is a network of citation relationships among works that are organized chronologically. The vertical axis represents time. Each node in the graph represents an article whose size is proportional to its local citation score. HistCite automatically creates IDs in Table 3. The citation connection is shown by the direction of an arrow. The higher the local citation score, the greater the relative importance of a paper.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01sep24/ejed12646-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12646-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Historiograph of shadow education research articles." /> </p> <p></p> <p>3 TABLE Top 32 articles of shadow education studies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">IDs</th><th align="left">Articles</th><th align="left">LCS</th><th align="left">GCS</th><th align="left">IDs</th><th align="left">Articles</th><th align="left">LCS</th><th align="left">GCS</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">24</td><td align="left">Stevenson and Baker (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">1992</xref>)</td><td align="left">103</td><td align="left">209</td><td align="left">57</td><td align="left">Hamid et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2009</xref>)</td><td align="left">32</td><td align="left">76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">31</td><td align="left">Baker et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2001</xref>)</td><td align="left">80</td><td align="left">158</td><td align="left">38</td><td align="left">Aurini and Davies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2004</xref>)</td><td align="left">31</td><td align="left">68</td></tr><tr><td align="left">34</td><td align="left">Bray and Kwok (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2003</xref>)</td><td align="left">74</td><td align="left">135</td><td align="left">151</td><td align="left">Bray et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2014</xref>)</td><td align="left">29</td><td align="left">45</td></tr><tr><td align="left">48</td><td align="left">Dang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2007</xref>)</td><td align="left">66</td><td align="left">97</td><td align="left">200</td><td align="left">Park et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2016</xref>)</td><td align="left">29</td><td align="left">62</td></tr><tr><td align="left">45</td><td align="left">Tansel and Bircan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79">2006</xref>)</td><td align="left">63</td><td align="left">127</td><td align="left">51</td><td align="left">Nath (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">2008</xref>)</td><td align="left">26</td><td align="left">41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">53</td><td align="left">Dang and Rogers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2008</xref>)</td><td align="left">58</td><td align="left">99</td><td align="left">96</td><td align="left">Park et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">2011</xref>)</td><td align="left">26</td><td align="left">100</td></tr><tr><td align="left">86</td><td align="left">Buchmann et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">53</td><td align="left">160</td><td align="left">166</td><td align="left">Zhang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2014</xref>)</td><td align="left">26</td><td align="left">34</td></tr><tr><td align="left">68</td><td align="left">Kim and Lee (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">50</td><td align="left">106</td><td align="left">77</td><td align="left">Lee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">25</td><td align="left">42</td></tr><tr><td align="left">71</td><td align="left">Dawson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">45</td><td align="left">98</td><td align="left">27</td><td align="left">Biswal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">1999</xref>)</td><td align="left">24</td><td align="left">38</td></tr><tr><td align="left">70</td><td align="left">Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="left">64</td><td align="left">82</td><td align="left">Kim and Park (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">23</td><td align="left">38</td></tr><tr><td align="left">36</td><td align="left">Davies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2004</xref>)</td><td align="left">40</td><td align="left">72</td><td align="left">75</td><td align="left">Ventura and Jang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">22</td><td align="left">36</td></tr><tr><td align="left">58</td><td align="left">Silova (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">37</td><td align="left">60</td><td align="left">119</td><td align="left">Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2013</xref>)</td><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">42</td></tr><tr><td align="left">73</td><td align="left">Mori and Baker (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">2010</xref>)</td><td align="left">37</td><td align="left">77</td><td align="left">47</td><td align="left">Lee (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2007</xref>)</td><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">42</td></tr><tr><td align="left">122</td><td align="left">Zhang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86">2013</xref>)</td><td align="left">36</td><td align="left">63</td><td align="left">228</td><td align="left">Zhang and Bray (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr84">2017</xref>)</td><td align="left">20</td><td align="left">33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">136</td><td align="left">Zhan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">2013</xref>)</td><td align="left">35</td><td align="left">48</td><td align="left">98</td><td align="left">Ireson and Rushforth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2011</xref>)</td><td align="left">20</td><td align="left">26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">33</td><td align="left">Mischo and Haag (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">2002</xref>)</td><td align="left">33</td><td align="left">46</td><td align="left">50</td><td align="left">Smyth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2008</xref>)</td><td align="left">20</td><td align="left">26</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Among all the papers, the Stevenson and Baker ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref66">77</reflink>]) study garners the highest number of citations, both within our sample (LCS) and across the entire Web of Science (GCS). The widespread citation of this paper likely stems from several factors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>) its conceptual innovation; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>) its publication in the prestigious American Journal of Sociology; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>) its citation by the seminal work of Bray ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref70">9</reflink>]) and by several other influential articles, including Bray & Kwok ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref71">20</reflink>], ID 34), Davies ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref72">34</reflink>], ID 36), Tansel & Bircan ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref73">79</reflink>], ID 45), Dang ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref74">32</reflink>], ID 48), Dang and Rogers ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref75">33</reflink>], ID 53) and Buchmann et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref76">26</reflink>], ID 86). Notably, even the Zhang and Bray ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref77">84</reflink>]) article, listed in Table 2, references it. Other significant works, such as those by Baker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref78">5</reflink>]), Bray and Kwok ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref79">20</reflink>]), Dang ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref80">32</reflink>]) and Tansel and Bircan ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref81">79</reflink>]), each boast over 60 local citation scores and more than 90 global citation scores.</p> <p>We then input the data from the historiography into Gephi to delineate the major evolution path of the citation network. Gephi can use the network data of the citation network to identify the critical nodes (articles) and directions (citation relationships) while omitting the trivial ones. The importance of a node in a citation network depends on two major measures. The first one is the number of indegrees, which indicates the count of citations a node receives. The more the indegrees, the more an article is cited. The second is betweenness centrality, which measures to what extent a node serves as a bridge between relatively separated parts of a network (Dolev et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref82">37</reflink>]). With Gephi, we calculated the two measures for us to prune the whole citation network into the major path, as shown in Figure 6, which demonstrates the major evolution path of shadow education research.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01sep24/ejed12646-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12646-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 The major evolution path of the historiograph of SER." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Critical nodes are kept due to their relatively high scores in both indegree and betweenness measures calculated by Gephi. Considering the temporal effect, articles published earlier have more time to be cited, while the newest published articles are more likely to innovate. That is because as shadow education research develops, this field needs more novel perspectives to bridge the old domains with new fields. So, in the early development of shadow education research, indegree is a relatively more important factor, while in the late development period, betweenness is more critical. For this reason, nodes with the highest three indegree or betweenness scores are kept regardless of the other score. A minimal indegree score of 20 and a betweenness score of 280 are used as thresholds to exclude trivial nodes.</p> <p>The remainder of the network is the major evolution path started with Stevenson and Baker ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref83">77</reflink>]), from where shadow education research scholarship soon began to diverge into Baker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>]), Bray and Kwok ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref85">20</reflink>]) and Dang and Rogers ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref86">33</reflink>]), all of which cited the 1992 article. So, the early development of shadow education research was like radiation, with the most influential 1992 article at the centre. The Dang and Rogers ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref87">33</reflink>]) paper occupied an important position due to its relatively high betweenness centrality in the early development of shadow education research before the transitional year 2009.</p> <p>The Bray ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref88">13</reflink>]) article also served as a bridge in the transition from 2009 to 2010. It was the first publication in mainstream journals to discuss several important methodological issues of shadow education research, which was later cited by Manzon and Areepattamannil ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref89">63</reflink>]), another methodology article with a high betweenness score. The article enriched a classical comparative education tool (Bray & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref90">22</reflink>]) to map shadow education research as a global discourse.</p> <p>The major path converged and ended at Park et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref91">67</reflink>]) article with the highest betweenness score of 1660.66 within our sample, which suggested its bridging power in the citation network. Published in the <emph>Annual Review of Sociology</emph>, a leading journal of sociology, this paper placed private tutoring in a broader context of outside school activities. It is possible, for this reason, it received 74 citations from non‐ shadow education research papers.</p> <hd id="AN0178882242-15">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>So far, we have explored several evolving mechanisms of shadow education research, which may have the following implications. <emph>Geographically</emph>, the co‐word analysis reveals that shadow education research has predominantly focused on the Asia‐Pacific region, especially East Asian societies, including Japan, South Korea, China (mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan), etc. Compared with this region, other regions, especially South America and Africa (see Bray, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref92">17</reflink>] for shadow education in Africa), need more attention and persistent research. <emph>Theoretically</emph>, probably due to our selection criteria, influential articles along the major evolution path of the citation network mainly regard shadow education as a supplement to mainstream education (Kim & Jung, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref93">52</reflink>]). Nevertheless, shadow education may replace its mainstream counterpart because some students regard the former as more effective (Zhan et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref94">82</reflink>]). Retheorizing shadow education may channel novel perspectives into this field and produce bridging publications that interest authors from other fields. <emph>Thematically</emph>, the co‐citation analysis suggests shadow education research originated from college admission and then diffused into broader discussions on various aspects of the education ecosystem (Luo & Chan, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref95">62</reflink>]). However, Bray ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref96">18</reflink>]) highlighted that within the field of private tutoring, many aspects remain under‐researched. One aspect is private tutoring as a business or profitable service (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref97">59</reflink>]). For example, how small and self‐employed private tutoring entrepreneurs develop their businesses in different sociocultural contexts remains largely unknown in literature, which deserves much academic attention (Holloway & Pimlott‐Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref98">44</reflink>]). As a unique type of business, research into shadow education from non‐educational perspectives may provide more insights for studying entrepreneurship, management and marketing.</p> <p>Yet, expanding the influence of shadow education research is an urgent job for shadow education researchers to invest their efforts in. Based on the WOS dataset, we constructed a matrix of the correlation coefficient (as shown in Figure 7) among Recs (the number of articles one author published), TLCS (the total citation of multiple articles written by one author, which is based on the collection we established), TLCSx (the number of citations of the paper from within the collection, excluding author self‐citations) and TGCS (the total number of citations of the paper from all sources, as reported in Web of Science when the data were downloaded).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01sep24/ejed12646-fig-0007.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12646-fig-0007.jpg" title="7 Correlation matrix among Recs, TLCS, TLCSx and TGCS." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The correlation coefficient (.67) between Recs and TLCSx highly resembles that (.66) between Recs and TGCS. It indicates that, excluding self‐citation, most articles in the collection were cited within the domain of SE, while few were cited by other research fields. In this sense, the knowledge dissemination network of SER is likely to form a network closure (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref99">28</reflink>]; Coleman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref100">31</reflink>]). This situation should be changed because network closure may lead to redundancy (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref101">27</reflink>]) and then a lack of good ideas (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref102">29</reflink>]). Thus, scholars need to conduct research that can be borrowed or utilized by other research domains.</p> <p>Finally, several limitations of our study should be acknowledged. First, some old articles, due to their publication years, were not recognized by the software, so they were left out for analysis. Second, many non‐English publications (e.g., articles in CNKI) were not used for analysis simply because they were not collected in WOS. Some of those publications were of high quality, but they were not fully circulated in the English literature. Therefore, we realized that we might have missed some very important non‐English publications in SER. Third, we did not fully explore citation and co‐citation network features since we only reported cluster and centrality‐related measures.</p> <hd id="AN0178882242-17">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available in Web of Science at https://julac‐hku.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/852JULAC%5fHKU/1ekl06i/alma991018968639703414. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain: Web of Science, https://julac‐hku.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/852JULAC_HKU/1ekl06i/alma991018968639703414.</p> <ref id="AN0178882242-18"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref26" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Appio, F. P., Cesaroni, F., & Di Minin, A. (2014). Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: A document co‐citation analysis. Scientometrics, 101 (1), 623 – 661.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref68" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aurini, J. (2004). Educational entrepreneurialism in the private tutoring industry: Balancing profitability with the humanistic face of schooling. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 41 (4), 475 – 491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aurini, J., & Davies, S. (2004). The transformation of private tutoring: Education in a franchise form. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 419 – 438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aurini, J., Davies, S., & Dierkes, B. (2013). Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. B. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education (Vol. 22, pp. xv – xxiv). Emerald.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref35" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., Le Tendre, G. K., & Wiseman, A. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside‐school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross‐national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (1), 1 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, D. P. (2020). An inevitable phenomenon: Reflections on the origins and future of worldwide shadow education. European Journal of Education, 55 (3), 311 – 315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Biswal, B. P. (1999). The implications of private tutoring on the school education in LDCs. The Journal of Policy Reform, 3 (1), 53 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref29" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M. (2003). Adverse effects of private supplementary tutoring: Dimensions, implications and government responses. UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M. (2006). Private supplementary tutoring: Comparative perspectives on patterns and implications. Compare, 36 (4), 515 – 530.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring? UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M. (2010). Researching shadow education: Methodological challenges and directions. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11 (1), 3 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M. (2011). The challenge of shadow education: Private tutoring and its implications for policy makers in the European Union. European Commission.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M. (2013). Shadow education: Comparative perspectives on the expansion and implications of private supplementary tutoring. Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 77, 412 – 420.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M. (2017). Schooling and its supplements: Changing global patterns and implications for comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 61 (3), 469 – 491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M. (2021). Shadow education in Africa: Private supplementary tutoring and its policy implications. Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. https://cerc.edu.hku.hk/books/shadow‐education‐in‐africa‐private‐supplementary‐tutoring‐and‐its‐policy‐implications/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M. (2023). Understanding private supplementary tutoring: Metaphors, diversities and agendas for shadow education research (Comprendiendo las clases particulares complementarias: metáforas, variedades y agendas para la investigación sobre educación en la sombra). Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 46 (4), 728 – 773. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2023.2194792</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M., & Kwo, O. (2014). Regulating private tutoring for public good: Policy options for supplementary education in Asia. Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M., & Kwok, P. (2003). Demand for private supplementary tutoring: Conceptual considerations, and socioeconomic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of Education Review, 22 (6), 611 – 620.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M., & Lykins, C. (2012). Shadow education: Private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in Asia. Asian Development Bank.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Different insights from different literatures and the value of multilevel analyses. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 472 – 490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M., Zhan, S., Lykins, C., Wang, D., & Kwo, O. (2014). Differentiated demand for private supplementary tutoring: Patterns and implications in Hong Kong secondary education. Economics of Education Review, 38, 24 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray, M., & Zhang, W. (2018). Public‐private partnerships in supplementary education: Sharing experiences in East Asian contexts. International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 6 (1), 98 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buchmann, C. (2002). Getting ahead in Kenya: Social capital, shadow education, and achievement. In B. Fuller & E. Hannum (Eds.), Schooling and social Capital in Diverse Cultures (Vol. 13, pp. 133 – 159). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buchmann, C., Condron, D. J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2010). Shadow education, American style: Test preparation, the SAT and college enrollment. Social Forces, 89 (2), 435 – 461.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, R. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 31 – 56). Aldine De Gruyter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110 (2), 349 – 399.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cherven, K. (2015). Mastering Gephi network visualization. Packt.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95 – 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dang, H.‐A. (2007). The determinants and impact of private tutoring classes in Vietnam. Economics of Education Review, 26 (6), 683 – 698.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dang, H.‐A., & Rogers, F. H. (2008). The growing phenomenon of private tutoring: Does it deepen human capital, widen inequalities, or waste resources? World Bank Research Observer, 23 (2), 161 – 200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, S. (2004). School choice by default? Understanding the demand for private tutoring in Canada. American Journal of Education, 110 (3), 233 – 255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawson, W. (2010). Private tutoring and mass schooling in East Asia: Reflections of inequality in Japan, South Korea, and Cambodia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11 (1), 14 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Długosz, P. (2016). Private lessons as an instrument for middle class status struggle in postsocialist societies: Poland and Ukraine case studies. Economics and Sociology, 9 (1), 173 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolev, S., Elovici, Y., & Puzis, R. (2010). Routing betweenness centrality. The Journal of the ACM, 57 (4), 1 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Entrich, S., & Lauterbach, W. (2022). Fearful future: The worldwide shadow education epidemic and the reproduction of inequality outside public schooling. In Y. C. Kim & J. H. Jung (Eds.), Theorizing shadow education and academic success in East Asia (pp. 234 – 256). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fu, Y. C., Marques, M., Tseng, Y.‐H., Powell, J. J. W., & Baker, D. P. (2022). An evolving international research collaboration network: Spatial and thematic developments in co‐authored higher education research, 1998–2018. Scientometrics, 127 (3), 1403 – 1429.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hajar, A., & Karakus, M. (2022). A bibliometric mapping of shadow education research: Achievements, limitations, and the future. Asia Pacific Education Review, 23, 341 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamid, M. O., Sussex, R., & Khan, A. (2009). Private tutoring in english for secondary school students in Bangladesh. TESOL Quarterly, 43 (2), 281 – 308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holloway, S. L., & Pimlott‐Wilson, H. (2020). Marketising private tuition: Representations of tutors' competence, entrepreneurial opportunities and service legitimation in home tutoring business manuals. British Educational Research Journal, 46 (1), 205 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holloway, S. L., & Pimlott‐Wilson, H. (2021). Solo self‐employment, entrepreneurial subjectivity and the security–precarity continuum: Evidence from private tutors in the supplementary education industry. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53 (6), 1547 – 1564.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hussein, M. G. A. (1987). Private tutoring: A hidden educational problem. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18 (1), 91 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00367916</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ireson, J. (2004). Private tutoring: how prevalent and effective is it?. London Review of Education, 2 (2), 109 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ireson, J., & Rushforth, K. (2011). Private tutoring at transition points in the English education system: Its nature, extent and purpose. Research Papers in Education, 26 (1), 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Javadi, Y., & Kazemirad, F. (2020). Worldwide shadow education epidemic and its move toward shadow curriculum. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11 (2), 212 – 220. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1102.09</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J.‐H., & Park, D. (2010). The determinants of demand for private tutoring in South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11 (3), 411 – 421.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, K.‐M., & Park, D. (2012). Impacts of urban economic factors on private tutoring industry. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13 (2), 273 – 280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S., & Lee, J.‐H. (2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58 (2), 259 – 296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y. C., & Jung, J. H. (2022). Introduction: Shadow education in East Asia. In Y. C. Kim & J. H. Jung (Eds.), Theorizing shadow education and academic success in East Asia (pp. 1 – 12). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kobakhidze, M. N. (2014). Corruption risks of private tutoring: Case of Georgia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34 (4), 455 – 475.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kobakidze, M. N., & Suter, L. E. (2020). The global diversity of shadow education. European Journal of Education, 55 (3), 316 – 321.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kong, Y.‐X., Shi, G.‐Y., Wu, R.‐J., & Zhang, Y.‐C. (2019). K‐core: Theories and applications. Physics Reports, 832, 1 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuan, P.‐Y. (2011). Effects of cram schooling on mathematics performance: Evidence from junior high students in Taiwan. Comparative Education Review, 55 (3), 342 – 368.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C., Lee, H., & Jang, H.‐M. (2010). The history of policy responses to shadow education in South Korea: Implications for the next cycle of policy responses. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11 (1), 97 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J.‐Y. (2007). Two worlds of private tutoring: The prevalence and causes of after‐school mathematics tutoring in Korea and the United States. Teachers College Record, 109 (5), 1207 – 1234.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J., Kobakhidze, N., & Qin, H. (2024). Unveiling shadow admissions to lower secondary schools: Brokerage practices amid mainland China's strong regulations on private tutoring. International Journal of Educational Development, 104, 102948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102948</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, J. (2012). Does cram schooling matter? Who goes to cram schools? Evidence from Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 32 (1), 46 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, L., & Mei, S. (2015). How can an indigenous concept enter the international academic circle: The case of guanxi. Scientometrics, 105 (1), 645 – 663.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luo, J., & Chan, C. (2022). Influences of shadow education on the ecology of education—A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 36, 1 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manzon, M., & Areepattamannil, S. (2014). Shadow educations: Mapping the global discourse. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34 (4), 389 – 402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mischo, C., & Haag, L. (2002). Expansion and effectiveness of private tutoring. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17 (3), 263 – 273.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mori, I., & Baker, D. (2010). The origin of universal shadow education: What the supplemental education phenomenon tells us about the postmodern institution of education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11 (1), 36 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nath, S. R. (2008). Private supplementary tutoring among primary students in Bangladesh. Educational Studies, 34 (1), 55 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, H., Buchmann, C., Choi, J., & Merry, J. J. (2016). Learning beyond the school walls: Trends and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 42 (1), 231 – 252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, H., Byun, S.‐Y., & Kim, K.‐K. (2011). Parental involvement and students' cognitive outcomes in Korea: Focusing on private tutoring. Sociology of Education, 84 (1), 3 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price, D. (1963). Little science. Big Science. Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roche, S. (2014). Who's learning whose learning? How internationalisation and pressure to perform are transforming education and learning. International Review of Education, 60, 597 – 601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159‐015‐9481‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohlen, T. P. (1980). The juku phenomenon: An exploratory essay. Journal of Japanese Studies, 6 (2), 207 – 242. https://doi.org/10.2307/132321</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanguri, K., Bhuyan, A., & Patra, S. (2020). A semantic similarity adjusted document co‐citation analysis: A case of tourism supply chain. Scientometrics, 125 (1), 233 – 269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silova, I. (2010). Private tutoring in eastern Europe and central Asia: Policy choices and implications. Compare, 40 (3), 327 – 344.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silova, I., & Bray, M. (2006). The hidden marketplace: Private tutoring in former socialist countries. In I. Silova, V. Budiene, M. Bray, & A. Zabulionis (Eds.), Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring (pp. 71 – 98). Open Society Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Small, H. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (4), 265 – 269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smyth, E. (2008). The more, the better? Intensity of involvement in private tuition and examination performance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14 (5), 465 – 476.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition to University in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97 (6), 1639 – 1657.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). The quest for citations: Drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing, 71 (3), 171 – 193.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tansel, A., & Bircan, F. (2006). Demand for education in Turkey: A tobit analysis of private tutoring expenditures. Economics of Education Review, 25 (3), 303 – 313.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ventura, A., & Jang, S. (2010). Private tutoring through the internet: Globalization and offshoring. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11 (1), 59 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walter, C., & Ribière, V. (2013). A citation and co‐citation analysis of 10 years of KM theory and practices. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11 (3), 221 – 229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhan, S., Bray, M., Wang, D., Lykins, C., & Kwo, O. (2013). The effectiveness of private tutoring: students' perceptions in comparison with mainstream schooling in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14 (4), 495 – 509.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, W. (2014). The demand for shadow education in China: Mainstream teachers and power relations. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34 (4), 436 – 454.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2017). Micro‐neoliberalism in China: Public‐private interactions at the confluence of mainstream and shadow education. Journal of Education Policy, 32 (1), 63 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2020). Comparative research on shadow education: Achievements, challenges, and the agenda ahead. European Journal of Education, 55 (3), 322 – 341.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, Y. (2013). Does private tutoring improve students' national college entrance exam performance?—A case study from Jinan, China. Economics of Education Review, 32, 1 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Li Jun and Wang Weilin</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref102"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1434693
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Evolving Mechanisms of Shadow Education Research
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Li+Jun%22">Li Jun</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wang+Weilin%22">Wang Weilin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1708-1164">0000-0002-1708-1164</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Trends%22">Educational Trends</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Publications%22">Publications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Global+Approach%22">Global Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tutoring%22">Tutoring</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Private+Education%22">Private Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Supplementary+Education%22">Supplementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12646
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Shadow education has burgeoned into a global phenomenon, and over the last 30 years, a substantial body of literature has emerged to explore this trend. Drawing on bibliometric data from 377 articles retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS), this study investigates the evolving landscape of shadow education research. It examines historical publication trends through performance analysis, intellectual sources and evolving themes using co-citation analysis, complemented by co-word analysis. Major authors and collaboration dynamics are discerned through co-authorship analysis, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of collaborative networks. Additionally, the study constructs an evolution path for shadow education research published in journals, employing citation analysis supplemented by social network analysis methods. In conclusion, the study not only illuminates the historical trajectory of shadow education as a concept but also poses pertinent questions and offers recommendations for future research. Our research significantly contributes to the comprehension of how shadow education has evolved from a nascent concept into a global research discourse.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1434693
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1434693
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12646
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Trends
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Publications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Global Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tutoring
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Private Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Supplementary Education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Evolving Mechanisms of Shadow Education Research
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Li Jun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wang Weilin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1