Collaboration network of applied linguistics research articles with different methodological orientations


applied linguistics
bibliometric analysis
collaboration network
methodological orientations

How to Cite

Amini Farsani, M., & Jamali, H. R. (2023). Collaboration network of applied linguistics research articles with different methodological orientations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 13(4), 727–754.

Number of views: 293

Number of downloads: 449


The current study draws on synthetic techniques and bibliometric analysis to explore the patterns of scientific collaboration in light of methodological orientations. We examined 3,992 applied linguistics (AL) articles published in 18 top-tier journals from 2009 to 2018 and analyzed their methodological orientations and scientific collaboration. Considering that the number of co-authored papers outweighs single-authored counterparts, our results revealed that the overall degree of collaboration for AL journals was moderate-to-high (57.7%). In particular, quantitative studies contained the highest degree of collaboration (66.8%). This was followed by systematic reviews (60.9%), and mixed-methods approach (55.7%). Country-wise, our overall findings further indicated that the United States and the United Kingdom were the two main hubs of collaborative activities for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. While the USA was the top country in systematic reviews like all other research approaches, the UK was the fifth country in systematic reviews. As for collaborating authors, our findings demonstrated that the most influential quantitative researchers had collaborated on Natural Language Processing (NLP) and data mining. While the mixed-methods researchers had a tendency to collaborate on conceptual issues subscribing to the language testing and assessment strand, the most productive qualitative researchers had collaborated on L2 writing issues. Implications for applied linguistics research are further discussed.


Ajiferuke, I., Burell, Q., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14, 421-433. DOI:

Alise, M., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103-126. DOI:

Amini Farsani, M., & Babaii, E. (2020). Applied linguistics research in three decades: A methodological synthesis of graduate theses in an EFL context. Quality & Quantity, 54, 1257-1283. DOI:

Amini Farsani, M., & Babaii, E., Beikmohammadi, M., & Babaii Farsani, M. (2022). Mixed‑methods research proficiency for applied linguists: A PLS‑path modelling approach. Quality & Quantity, 56, 3337-3362. DOI:

Amini Farsani, M., Jamali, H. R., Beikmohammadi, M., Daneshvar Ghorbani, B., & Soleimani, L. (2021). Methodological orientations, academic citations, and scientific collaboration in applied linguistics: What do research syn-thesis and bibliometrics indicate? System, 100, 102547. DOI:

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Open University Press.

Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74. DOI:

Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 8-22. DOI:

Byrnes, H. (2013). Notes from the editor. Modern Language Journal, 97, 825-827. DOI:

Cooper, H. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. SAGE Publications. DOI:

de Bot, K. (2015). A history of applied linguistics: From 1980 to the present. Routledge. DOI:

Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Smyth, P. (1996). From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. AI Magazine, 17(3), 37-54.

Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2011). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323-335. DOI:

Guba, E. E. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Sage.

Guetterman, T. C. (2017). What distinguishes a novice from an expert mixed methods researcher? Quality and Quantity, 51(1), 377-398. DOI:

Harding, H. (1993). The concept of “Greater China”: Themes, variations and reservations. The China Quarterly, 136, 660-686. DOI:

Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214-1229. DOI:

Hashemi, M. R. (2020). Expanding the scope of mixed methods research in applied linguistics. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 39-51). Routledge. DOI:

Hilario, C. M., & Grácio, M. C. C. (2017). Scientific collaboration in Brazilian re-searches: A comparative study in the information science, mathematics and dentistry fields. Scientometrics, 113(2), 929-950. DOI:

Hill, Ch., Khoo, S., & Hsieh, Y-C. (2020) An investigation into the learning transfer of English for specific academic purposes (ESAP) writing skills of students in Singapore. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48, 100908. DOI:

Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 59, 116-125. DOI:

Jang, E. E., Wagner, M., & Park, G. (2014). Mixed methods research in language testing and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 123-153. DOI:

King, K. L., & Mackey, A. (2016). Research methodology in second language studies: Trends, concerns, and new directions. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 209-227. DOI:

Lei, L., & Liu, D. (2019). Research trends in applied linguistics from 2005 to 2016: A bibliometric analysis and its implications. Applied Linguistics, 40, 540-561. DOI:

Letsky, M., Warner, N., Fiore, S., & Smith, C. A. P. (Eds.). (2008). Macrocognition in teams: Theories and methodologies. Ashgate.

McKinley, J. (2020). Theorizing research methods in the golden age of applied linguistics research. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge hand-book of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 1-13). Routledge. DOI:

Nikzad, M., Jamali, H. R., & Hariri, N. (2011). Patterns of Iranian co-authorship networks in social sciences: A comparative study. Library and Information Science Research, 33(4), 313-319. DOI:

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Wilcox, R., Gonzales, V., Hoisington, S., Lambert, J., Jordan, J., Aleisa, M., Benge, C., Wachsmann, M., & Valle, R. (2018). Collaboration patterns among mixed researchers: A multidisciplinary examination. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 437-457. DOI:

Pan, R. K., Kasi, K., & Fortunato, S. (2012). World citation and collaboration networks: Uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports, 2(902), 2-7. DOI:

Pelaez-Morales, C. (2017). Short communication: L2 writing scholarship in JSLW: An updated report of research published between 1992-2015. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 9-19. DOI:

Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655-687. DOI:

Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990-2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98, 450-470. DOI:

Plonsky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 505-521). Taylor and Francis. DOI:

Plonsky, L., Oswald, F. L. (2015). Meta-analyzing second language research. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language re-search (pp. 106-128). Routledge. DOI:

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349. DOI:

Riazi, A. M., Ghanbar, H., & Fazel, I. (2020). The contexts, theoretical and methodological orientation of EAP research: Evidence from empirical articles published in the Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48, 100925. DOI:

Riazi, A. M., Shi, L., & Haggerty, J. (2018). Analysis of the empirical research in the Journal of Second Language Writing at its 25th year (1992-2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 41-54. DOI:

Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643-681. DOI:

Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A re-view. Journal of Information Science, 6, 33-38. DOI:

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010) VOSViewer: Visualizing scientific landscapes [Software]. Available from

Wachsmann, M. S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Hoisington, S., Gonzales, V., Wilcox, R., Valle, R., & Aleisa, M. (2019). Collaboration patterns as a function of re-search experience among mixed researchers: A mixed methods bibliometric study. The Qualitative Report, 24(12), 2954-2979. DOI:

Wagner, C.S., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: Building capacities in developing countries. RAND.

Warschauer, M., Yim, S., Lee, H., & Zheng, B. B. (2019). Recent contributions of data mining to language learning research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 93-112. DOI:

World Bank. (2019). Global financial development report 2019/2020: Bank regulation and supervision a decade after the global financial crisis. The World Bank.

Zhang, X. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of second language acquisition be-tween 1997 and 2018. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 199-222. DOI:

Zhao, J. J., Beckett, G., & Wang, L. L. (2017). Evaluating the research quality of education journals in China: Implications for increasing global impact in peripheral countries. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 583-618. DOI: