computers in human behaviorapp.mtu.edu.ng/cbas/computer science/mapping development... ·...

Computers in Human Behavior 51 (2015) 1142–1153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /comphumbeh

Mapping development of social media research through differentdisciplines: Collaborative learning in management and computer science

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.0340747-5632/� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author at: College of Management and Economics, TianjinUniversity, Tianjin 300072, China.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (X. Zhang), [email protected] (P.O. dePablos), [email protected] (J. Tang), [email protected] (X. Yan).

1 Address: College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin300072, China.

2 Address: Institute of Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.15 ZhongGuanCun BeiYiTiao Alley, Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China.

3 Address: Dept. Administración de Empresas, Universidad de Oviedo, Facultad deEconomía y Empresa, Avda del Cristo, s/n, 33.071 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain.

Xi Zhang a,⇑, Weiguang Wang b,2, Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos c,3, Jing Tang d,2, Xiangda Yan a,1

a College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Chinab Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, United Statesc Department of Business Administration, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spaind EMLYON Business School, 23 avenue Guy de Collongue, CS 40203, 69134 Ecully cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 31 March 2015

Keywords:Social mediaLiterature metrologyManagementComputer science, Collaborative Learning(CL)

a b s t r a c t

Social media is bringing great challenges and wonderful opportunities for companies which attract bothmany managers and quite large number of researchers in recent years. However, current studies on socialmedia has not been depicted well by combining work of both researchers in management study and onesin computer science study. Using CiteSpace II, this paper empirically mapped important references thatlead trends of social media development, authors contributing greatly to this field and hot topics of all thesocial media articles. The way that social media study developed was analyzed according to the visualiza-tion of references and topics of social media, with support of empirical data from Web of Science. Generalcharacters of published articles from top journals and top conferences were given out to show status ofsocial media study now. Furthermore, the two most important groups – topics from management studyand those from computer science study were studied respectively to compare their development in orderto show the fusion, the separation and other relationship of the two most important branches of socialmedia. Then we debate Collaborative Learning (CL) as an emerging hot topic both in management andcomputer science under the environment of social media. Finally, hottest trends and topics in these yearsand recent future were discussed to provide help for future work.

� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

According to Nielsen (2012), the time people spend on socialmedia in America increased rapidly from 88 billion minutes in2011 to 121 billion minutes in 2012. And numerous reports orstudies also reveal that social media is becoming the hottest aspecton internet (Jain, 2013; Labra Gayo, Ord Ez De Pablos, & CuevaLovelle, 2010; Norman, 2010). In this case, social media is attract-ing more and more attentions in management study, computerscience study and real business (Bowman, Westerman, & Claus,2012; Guo, Vogel, Zhou, Zhang, & Chen, 2009; Zhou, Fang, Vogel,

Jin, & Zhang, 2012). Generally, social media refers to ‘‘a group ofInternet-based applications that build on the ideological andtechnological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creationand exchange of user-generated content’’ (Kaplan & Haenlein,2010), which include Wikis, Twitter, Facebook, Virtual Worlds,et al.

Based on the work done by both researchers of managementstudy and ones of computer science study, understanding of socialmedia and its nature is accumulated in different publications.Firstly, before the ‘‘social media’’ was proposed, a lot of work hasbeen done about ‘‘media’’ and ‘‘social’’. They mostly focused onjournalism (Bagdikian, 1990; Tuchman, 1978), technology andother certain social problems such as social capital (Putnam,2000) and antiwar movements (Gitlin, 1980). These studies wentvery deep but structure of them was loose. In this period, studieson social media were different from the management perspectiveand the computer science perspective.

With the advent of social media era, more and more recentattentions were paid on social media study. From 2008, somepapers began to discuss social media directly (Ahlqvist &Tutkimuskeskus, 2008; Eugene, Castillo, Donato, Gionis, &

X. Zhang et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 51 (2015) 1142–1153 1143

Mishne, 2008). This is the early stage of the new trend of socialmedia study. More and more computer science study adoptedmanagement theories to uncover nature of social media and to finddirection of technical social media promotion (Correa, Hinsley, &de Zuniga, 2010; Mangold & Faulds, 2009). In 2010, the article ofKaplan and Haenlein (2010) made social media study more sys-tematic. After that, development of social media increased rapidlyand lots of findings were made. The distinction that social mediahas from other media in quality, reach, frequency, accessibility,usability, immediacy and performance were found and welldefined (Eugene et al., 2008). The honeycomb framework definedseven blocks to identify the focus of certain social media(Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). Impact ofsocial media is going to be measured by researchers (Harris &Kandace, 2008). On one hand, a number of ways were proposedin management group to take advantages of business value ofsocial media. These include Word-of-Mouth marketing (Kozinets,de Valck, Wojnicki, & Wilner, 2010; Smith, Coyle, Lightfoot, &Scott, 2007), marketing research with social media data (Kaplan,2012), communication (Anger & Kittl, 2011; Zailskaite-Jakste &Kuvykaite, 2012), collaborate sales promotion (Mackey & Liang,2013) and relation development (Yanping & Qianmiao, 2009). Onthe other hand, techniques about social media are studied widelyin computer science group to provide support for promotion ofsocial media use (Wang, Yang, Hua, & Zhang, 2010; Zhao, Wu, &Ngo, 2010). Also, shortcomings of social media were discussedintensively in two branches. The criticisms cover topics abouttrustworthiness (Kittur, Suh, Chi, & ACM, 2008), reliability(Moorhead et al., 2013; Pelechrinis, Zadorozhny, & Oleshchuk,2011), ownership of social media content (Agha, Van Rossem,Stallworthy, & Kusanthan, 2007; van Laer, de Ruyter, & Cox,2013), privacy (Campisi, Maiorana, Neri, & IEEE, 2009; Child,Haridakis, & Petronio, 2012) and loneliness (Vergeer & Pelzer,2009).

In today’s world, human actors and software process enginescooperate closely to enact business process at a previouslyunheard-of scale and complexity level (Damiani, Lytras, & Cudre-Mauroux, 2010). And the social activities that occur in the Web2.0 open and expand communication and interaction scenarios(Garcia-Penalvo, Colomo-Palacios, & Lytras, 2012). Notably, in bothfields of Management and Computer Science, CollaborativeLearning (CL) under the environment of socia media emergeswhich indicates CL is more and more popular in recent years espe-cially due to the widely use of social media. Some scholars speakhighly of effects of social media on CL, such as, regarding socialmedia as a good way of jointly constructing knowledges(Moskaliuk et al., 2011)and a good tool for students to foster col-laborative learning during lectures (George, Dreibelbis, &Aumiller, 2013). A paper about media in CL firstly propose thatcomputer-supported collaboration learning (CSCL) can lead to highperformance in complex task (Chou & Min, 2009). Though the workuse media insteads of social media, the method authors use reflectsa concept of social media. With the clear definition of social mediagiven by outstanding scholars like Kaplan, researchers begin tostudy the effects of social media on CL deeply which involves man-agement and computer science.

Although social media studies obtained great basic frameworksfor various studies and impacts of social media studies are beingexamined, rare research have reviewed the development of socialmedia study quantitatively and visually. Furthermore, studies onsocial media in different disciplines are not well combined.Especially for the disciplines of management and computer science,which focus on different aspects of social media and hardly get fullunderstanding of situations in other disciplines. They need to figureout the development of whole social media study as well as theirown stages. In this case, conclusion of social media development

is urgently needed for understanding process and the present sta-tus of social media study. Thus, this study has two major researchquestions: (1) What are the development trends of social media stud-ies? (2) Which trends are different between two major disciplines, i.e.,management and computer science? This paper empirically analyzedthe progress of social media evolution to help track the emergenceof social media study and predict future trends of it. Importantreferences, authors, institutions, journals and topics were dis-cussed to map the status of this field. Finally, the two importantbranches of social media study-the management group and thecomputer science group are analyzed. Their fusion and separationwere described as well. This analysis can help understand therelationship of the two branches and find way to enhance thewhole social media study. This paper was organized as follow: InSection 2, we introduced research methods and data collection pro-cess. From Sections 3 to 4, we analyzed the general trends of socialmedia, and compared two branches, i.e., management and com-puter science. The findings were discussed in Section 5.

2. Methodology and data

Citespace II is an information visualization tool developed byProfessor Chaomei Chen from Drexel University for getting quan-titative data and visualizing information in special field (Chen,2006). It is regarded as the most characteristic and influentialapplication software in the field of visualization analysis whichcan visualize and analyze the trends and patterns in a field ordomain within a designated period of time (Liu, Jiang, & Jin,2014). There is no doubt that scholars in different fields haveattempted studies with the help of Citespace including the onesin IS. For instance, Yang concluded research focus and researchfrontier in information management filed and depict an overviewof this field witch provide convenience for future researches(Yang, 2013). Li and Shen utilizes Citespace and Sigma index toconduct analysis on key technologies of technical evolution inthe 3G mobile communication system (Li & Shen, 2013). Wu andChen detected important subjects and regions together with therecent research stream in Cloud Computing with the help ofCitespace (Wu, Chen, & IEEE, 2012). All the researches indicate thatCitespace is an useful tool for discovering trends and emergingtopics in the development of a field or domain. Hence, in thispaper, wo choose Citespace II as the main tool to obtain a visualresult of trends and topics in the field of social media study. Webof Science (WoS) is selected as our data source which can also pro-vide some basic functions such as showing publication and citationnumbers in different periods. In this study, these tools were used toanalyze development of social media both from a comprehensiveperspective and from perspectives of a discipline (managementor computer science). Records of papers in WoS were used as data-sets for this study. We searched for ‘‘social media’’ in titles ofpapers on WoS, timespan was set ‘‘all years’’, ‘‘Science CitationIndex Expanded (SCI-E): 1900-present’’, ‘‘Social Science CitationIndex (SSCI): 1996-present’’ and ‘‘Conference ProceedingsCitation Index Science (CPCI-S): 1990-present’’ were selected forCitation Database. Finally 1632 records were collected. Theserecords were adopted for analyzing the development of wholesocial media research. Then, records for computer science groupwere selected by confining research area as ‘‘computer science’’and ones for management group can be find by choosing researcharea as ‘‘business and economics’’. 211 records for managementgroup and 316 for computer science group were found. By analyz-ing information of papers in these records, situation of thesepublications can be observed. And with help of CiteSpace II, cita-tion data contained in these records can give out information abouta much more wide range of publications.

(a) Numbers of Published Papers (b) Citations of Papers

Fig. 1. Numbers and citations of papers on social media in each year.

Table 1Top 4 (ranked 1–3) references in frequency of social media study.

Rank Freq Author Year Title Source

1 78 Kaplan A.M 2010 Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media BUS HORIZONS2 26 Granovet M.S 1973 The Strength of Weak Ties AM J SOCIOL3 25 Putnam R.D. 2000 Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community Book3 25 Chretien K.C 2009 Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC

Table 2Top 5 references in burst of social media study.

Rank Burst Author Year Title Source

1 14.74 Kaplan AM 2010 Users of The World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media BUS HORIZONS2 5.36 Chretien KC 2009 Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC3 5.08 Blei DM 2003 Latent Dirichlet Allocation J MACH LEARN RES4 3.85 Mangold WG 2009 Social Media: The New Hybrid Element of the Promotion Mix BUS HORIZONS5 3.5 PUTNAM RD 1995 Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital J DEMOCRACY

1144 X. Zhang et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 51 (2015) 1142–1153

3. Development of social media study

3.1. Growth of social media study

We analyzed the numbers and citations of social media researchin each year, and found social media studies developed rapidly inrecent years, especially after 2008 (Fig. 1). The citations in eachyear show that the impact of social media study increased explic-itly before the fast development of social media itself. This indi-cates the burst of social media is an expectable one and the workdone before 2008 is fundamental for it.

3.2. Influential references of social media study

It is important to find the most influential publications in socialmedia study to locate basic and classic thoughts in this field. Byusing CiteSpace II, we ranked references according to their 3 indi-cators: (1) frequency, referring to the times the item (reference)cited by papers in pre-set dataset, which can directly present influ-ence of a reference; (2) burst, referring to the indicator that showsthe degree of burst of the item (reference) in recent years, whichcan work well to discover research hotspot in an area; and (3) cen-trality, which is the one depicting the reference’s role in linkingothers up. Centrality can reveal the structure of an area by pin-pointing nodes that linked different clusters of papers.

3.2.1. Most influential publications for social mediaThe most influential publications which were cited most by

papers in this field. The first four ones (ranked 1–3) are listed inTable 1. According to frequency analysis, the most cited referencesin social media study are ‘‘Users of the world, unite! The challengesand opportunities of Social Media’’ published by Kaplan A.M andHaenlein Michael on Business Horizons in 2010. This paper madesocial media study more explicit and systematic. It still is the hot-test reference currently, and leads the new trend of social mediastudy. In this paper, Kaplan Andreas and Haenlein Michael gaveout definition of social media, pointed out difference betweensocial media and traditional concepts like Web 2.0 and user gener-ated content, made the widely accepted classification and providedadvice to companies that want to utilize social media.

3.2.2. Hottest publications for social mediaAccording to burst indicator, the first five hottest publications

were listed in Table 2.When it comes to the ones enjoying highest centrality, top refer-

ences are all relatively old. This is a normal result since we studypublications in the whole timespan. In order to find out papers orbooks linking references focused in recent years up, we limited thetime as 2009–2013 (Table 3). That because publications about socialmedia have soared since 2009. Then the publications that help tocombine references of this new trend of social media study are

Table 3Top 5 reference in centrality of social media in 2009–2013.

Rank Centrality Author Year Title Source

1 0.28 Granovet MS 1973 The Strength of Weak Ties AM J SOCIOL2 0.2 Putnam R. D. 2000 Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community BOWLING ALONE COLLAP3 0.17 Kaplan AM 2010 Users of The World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media BUS HORIZONS4 0.14 Berthon P. R. 2007 When Customers Get Clever: Managerial Approaches to Dealing with Creative Consumers BUS HORIZONS5 0.13 Benkler Y. 2006 The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom Book


‘‘The strength of weak ties’’, ‘‘Bowling Alone: The Collapse andRevival of American Community’’, ‘‘Users of the world, unite! Thechallenges and opportunities of Social Media’’, et al.

Through ranks in this indicator in different timespan, we caneasily find the change of social media study. Firstly, social mediastudy (or just social and media) was related to journalism (like‘‘Making news: A study in the construction of reality’’ and‘‘Media Monopoly’’) and certain social problems such as social

Fig. 2. Structure of soc

Fig. 3. Development of s

capital, antiwar movements, people’s relationship and health.That is why these ones can play a huge role in linking differentclusters. And now, more and more social media studies arefocusing on different kinds of people’s connection, marketing,network.

Most references were introduced in frequency and burst. Thisindicate the young stage of social media study by revealing thatmost researchers are still focusing on fundamental works of social

ial media authors.

ocial media authors.

Table 6Top 10 journals in frequency and burst of social media study.


media instead of studying deeply on branches of this field. In fact,social media knowledge has not been transferred far enough now.

Rank Frequency Burst

Freq Journal Burst Journal

1 141 J COMMUN 7.16 J MED INTERNET RES2 113 COMMUN RES 5.63 NY TIMES3 97 J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM 5.46 MEDIA EFFECTS ADV TH4 97 BUS HORIZONS 4.99 AM J POLIT SCI5 90 NEW MEDIA SOC 4.88 JOURNALISM QUART6 88 J PERS SOC PSYCHOL 4.8 AM J SOCIOL7 87 AM J SOCIOL 4.71 J BUS ETHICS8 84 COMMUN ACM 4.47 PUBLIC OPIN QUART9 80 PUBLIC OPIN QUART 4.43 COMPUT HUM BEHAV

10 79 PSYCHOL BULL 4.36 J BROADCAS ELECTRON

Table 7Top 6 journals in centrality of social media study.

Rank 1990–2013 2009–2013

Cent Journal Cent Journal

1 0.23 AM J SOCIOL 0.13 SCIENCE2 0.21 J COMMUN 0.11 COMMUN RES3 0.16 AM PSYCHOL 0.1 ANNU REV SOCIOL4 0.14 J PERS SOC PSYCHOL 0.09 COMMUN ACM5 0.13 AM SOCIOL REV 0.09 CYBERPSYCHOL BEHAV6 0.13 COMMUN RES 0.09 J PERS SOC PSYCHOL

3.3. Outstanding authors in social media study

With help of WoS and CiteSpace II, visualizing structure ofauthors and development of them are presented in Figs. 2 and 3.Top three cited authors in frequency were also calculated, that isKaplan A.M (freq = 81), Lenhart A. (freq = 50), and Chretien K.C(freq = 36), who are the first three most important ones approvedby researchers in this field.

According to burst and centrality (in 1990–2013), cited authorscan also be ranked. Then we found the hottest cited authors inBurst are Kaplan A.M (Burst = 10.56), Chretien K.C (5.31) and BleiDM (5.07). As calculated with centrality in 1990–2013, the oneswho help develop social media study by transferring knowledgeeffectively are Rice R.E (centrality = 0.13), Bandur A.A (0.11), andIyengar S. (0.1). However, their indicators are not so bigger thanothers behind them and this is for the whole timespan.

To show who contribute the propagation of this new socialmedia study trend, time should be limited in 2009–2013. The fourauthors Lenhart A. (0.18), Putnam R.D (0.17), Granovet M.S (0.16)and Bandura A. (0.16) show greater centrality than others. In thiscase, we can conclude that authors in the previous social mediastudy are combined together quite well. There was no obviousone who link different group together. This may be because theydeveloped quite well before and knowledge in different area aboutthis topic is blended maturely. For the new trend, several authorsare linking other authors in different areas together now. Forexample, Lenhart is linking social media study with medical study;Putnam is linking social media study with study about social prob-lems in modern society; Granovet is linking social media studywith research on weak ties; Bandura is linking social media studywith some kinds of psychological study; And Eysenbach is linkingsocial media study with health study.

Table 4Top 11 institutions of social media study.

Rank 1990–2013 2009–2013

Freq Institution Freq Institution

1 18 Univ Wisconsin 15 Arizona State Univ2 16 Arizona State Univ 13 Univ Wisconsin3 15 Ohio State Univ 12 Harvard Univ4 15 Univ Maryland 12 Univ Maryland5 12 Harvard Univ 10 Ohio State Univ6 11 Univ Illinois 10 Univ Texas Austin7 11 Univ Washington 10 Univ Washington8 11 Penn State Univ 10 Univ Georgia9 11 Univ Georgia 9 Univ Illinois

10 10 Univ Texas Austin 9 Univ Toronto11 10 Univ N Carolina 9 Penn State Univ

Table 5Top 10 journals in number of publications of social media in dataset.

Journal Record count % of 1632

LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 38 2.328PUBLIC RELATIONS REVIEW 25 1.532ECONTENT 23 1.409HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW 21 1.287COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR 18 1.103JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 15 0.919GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY 14 0.858IEEE INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS 13 0.797INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 13 0.797MEDIA INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA 13 0.797

3.4. Important institutions for social media study

According to Table 4, most productive universities about socialmedia are University of Wisconsin and Arizona State University.The frequency of citations generally confirms that the staff intwo universities pay good attention to social media study sincevery early to now.

3.5. Top-tier journals of social media study

Journals in the dataset giving support to social media study canbe picked up by their number of social media articles. In this way,the top journals can be listed in Table 5.

While the most influential journals for social media study arenot always the ones which try to contribute to its development.Most cited journals in are J COMMUN (frequency = 141),COMMUN RES (113), J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM (97) and BUSHORIZONS (97). Hottest ones recently are J MED INTERNET RES(7.16), NY TIMES (5.63), MEDIA EFFECTS ADV TH (5.46), andCOMPUT HUM BEHAV (Computers in Human Behavior, 4.43),et al. (Table 6). Journals help to transfer knowledge most betweensocial media and other study are AM J SOCIOL, J COMMUN and AMPSYCHOL. While in the year 2009–2013, some new journals areplay the role of transferring knowledge, they are SCIENCE,COMMUN RES and ANNU REV SOCIOL (Table 7). This changereveals growth the new trend of social media study. New socialmedia findings are rapidly combining with other field.

3.6. Hot topics in social media study

In this study, keyword was selected to act as a proxy of topic.According to frequency of keywords in the dataset, we can pinpointtopics that researchers studied most, they are the hot ones. Firstly,different timespans were used to determine different stages ofsocial media study (see Tables 16 and 17). With these results, wedivided the whole period into two stages to study the trends ofsocial media study. Time before 2009 is the first stage. In this stage,social media is not an integrated one as today. Study about it isfocusing interaction between media and social problems.

Table 8Top keywords in frequency of social media in 1990–2013.

Rank 1990–2013 1990–2008 2009–2013

Freq Keyword Freq Keyword Freq Keyword

1 299 Social media 17 Television 292 Social media2 110 Internet 16 Media 101 Internet3 76 Communication 13 News 64 Facebook4 64 Facebook 12 Communication 64 Communication5 46 Information 9 Internet 41 Information6 43 Web 2.0 8 Behavior 40 Web 2.07 40 Networks 8 Community 36 Twitter8 39 Technology 8 Impact 35 Online9 38 Online 7 Knowledge 34 Technology

10 36 Twitter 7 Social media 33 Networks11 7 Technology 18 Television12 7 Networks 17 Media13 15 News

Table 9Top keywords in burst of social media in 1990–2013.

Rank Burst Keyword Year

1 9.82 Facebook 20102 4.91 Education 20093 4.83 Media 19994 4.6 Social media 20085 4.58 Community 20066 4.1 Television 19987 3.76 Internet 19988 3.62 Web 2.0 20089 3.27 Twitter 2011


Outstanding theories were formed in this stage, such as the weakties theory. After social media tools’ emergence (like Facebookand twitter), more and more study began aiming to reveal natureof social media. Some important work was done in years around2008. Then in the second stage, number of publications on social

Table 10Articles about Collaborative Learning under the environment of social media.

Cite Author Year Title

16 Chou 2009 The impact of media on collaborative learnsocial construction

13 George, Daniel R 2011 Use of social media in graduate-level medfrom Penn State College of Medicine

13 Keim 2011 Emergent use of social media: a new age o

9 Mergel, Ines 2013 Social media adoption and resulting tactic

9 Top, Ercan 2012 Blogging as a social medium in undergradpredictor of perceived learning

Table 11Top 3 (Ranked 1–3) keywords in each year in frequency in 2004–2013.

Year Keyword (rank)

2004 Television (1) Media Literacy (2), Internet (2), Media (2), Internet2005 Television (1) Media (1) Risk-Factors (3), Life (3), News (3), Impact (3), Com2006 Communication (1) Media Use (2), Mobilization (2), Television (2), Self

Race (2), Community (2), Collective Action (2)2007 Media (1) Community (2) Culture (3), Television (3), Behav

Communication (3)2008 Social Media (1) Social Networking (2), Community(2), Web 2.0 (2)2009 Social Media (1) Television (2), Participation (2), Media (2), Blogs (22010 Social Media (1) Internet (2) Web 2.0 (3)2011 Social Media (1) Communication (2), Networks (2)2012 Social Media (1) Internet (2) Facebook (3)2013 Social Media (1) Facebook (2) Internet (3)

media started to soar in 2009. And in 2010 Kaplan AM andHaenlein Michael published their classical paper which made thesocial media study become systematic. After this paper, moreand more publications are taking part in social media study.Now, social media study is increasing quite fast and propagatinginto many other fields.

In the whole period, most important topics are ‘‘internet’’,‘‘communication’’, ‘‘facebook’’ and so on (Table 8). In the first stage(1990–2008), the three most important topics are ‘‘television’’,‘‘media’’ and ‘‘news’’. While in the second stage (2009–2013), thethree topics rank respectively 19, 22 and 28. The new top threetopics are ‘‘internet’’, ‘‘facebook’’ and ‘‘communication’’. Noticingthe top three keywords in the second stage are the ones of thewhole period, we can conclude that the second stage is the mainstage of social media study up to now. At the same time, basedon the burst indicator, the fastest topics going up are ‘‘facebook’’,‘‘education’’ and ‘‘media’’ (Table 9). There is no doubt that

Source

ing in virtual settings: The perspective of COMPUTERS & EDUCATION

ical humanities education: Two pilot studies MEDICAL TEACHER

f opportunity for disaster resilience American journal of disastermedicine

s in the US federal government GOVERNMENT INFORMATIONQUARTERLY

uate courses: Sense of community best J INTERNET AND HIGHEREDUCATION

Paradox (2), Life (2), New Media (2), Women (2)munication (3)(2), Income Inequality (2), Uses And Gratifications (2), News (2),

ior (3), Campaign (3), News (3), Networks (3), Perception (3), Public-Opinion (3),

, Networks (2)), Communication (2)


‘‘facebook’’ is the hottest topic during recent years because of thefamous of facebook use. So the topic ‘‘education’’ is regarded asthe first burst topic in this paper. Outstanding scholars suggest thatTechnology-based education or technology applied to education isa key issue in Knowledge Society (Garcia-Penalvo, Velazquez-Iturbide, & Llamas-Nistal, 2013). And by reading crucial articles,we found that CL plays an important role in education in the con-text of social media. Then we select ‘‘Collaborative Learning’’ as afilter and summarize the articles in Table 10. From all articleselected, we also found the phenomenon researches are major inManagement and Computer Science. In the perspective of manage-ment, some typical studies like demonstrating how social mediacan be utilised as platform for effective e-learning to benefit stu-dent development and to create proactive communities (Zheleva

(a) Frequency and Rank of “So

(b) Frequency and Rank of Top

(c) Frequency and Rank of Top3

Fig. 4. Frequency and rank of ‘‘

& Zhelev, 2011), new communication tools allow users to moveto a kind of collaborative education and updating where newsand contents (Santoro, 2013) and so on. And in ComputerScience, many technologies are studied and applied to the practiceof CL under social media, the representative are an informal learn-ing social media application under development known as ‘Mobltz’(Lewis, Pea, & Rosen, 2010) and a mobile social media frameworkfor pedagogical transformation (Cochrane & Rhodes, 2013).Meanwhile, with the integration of researches in managementand computer science, some platforms for CL based on social mediaare propose, such as, SMLearning platform (Claros & Cobos, 2013)and eMUSE platform (Popescu, 2014).

In this paper, keywords in each year were ranked withCiteSpace II. First three ones in each year were listed in Table 11.

cial Media” in Each Year

3 Topics in the First Stage

Topics in the Second Stage

Social Media’’ in each year.

Fig. 5. Visualization of social media study evolution.


In order to track the evolution of social media study, top threewords for two different stages and the one ‘‘social media’’ areshown in Fig. 4 in detail according to their frequency and rank ineach year. Social media was not an important topic independentlybefore the year 2008 (Fig. 4). After that, it keeps soaring. Topics like‘‘television’’, ‘‘media’’ and ‘‘news’’ ranked very high until 2007.They represent the topics about combination of journalism, tech-nology with social problems. With the advent of ‘‘social media’’,these topics’ influences decreased and were taken the place bysocial media. But these topics still attract certain attentions butseparated in part from social media study. And for the most popu-lar topics now, some like ‘‘internet’’ and ‘‘communication’’ werepopular ones in the past, too. Some like ‘‘Facebook’’ are the newones generated in this trend.

Using CiteSpace II, visualization was done for individual key-words structure in each year (Fig. 5). This visualization showsthe progress of development of social media study. Topics relatedto social media accumulated in this progress and their structure

Table 12Top 5 top references in management group.

Rank Freq Author Year Title

1 24 Kaplan AM 2010 Users of the World, Uni2 13 Trusov M 2009 Monetary Value of Wor3 12 Godes D 2004 Using Online Conversat4 9 Chevalier JA 2006 The Effect of Word of M4 9 Li C. 2008 Ground Swell: Winning

Table 13Top 6 top references in computer science group.

Rank Freq Author Year Title

1 23 Kaplan AM 2010 Users of the World, Unite! T2 15 Blei DM 2003 Latent Dirichlet Allocation3 10 Wasserman S. 1994 Social Network Analysis: Me4 8 Granovet MS 1973 The Strength of Weak Ties4 8 Lowe DG 2004 Distinctive Image Features fr4 8 Agichtein E 2008 Finding High-Quality Conten

in becoming tighter and tighter. In the years before 2008, not somany topics are related to social media closely. From 2004 to2007, the number increased. When it came to the year around2008, cluster on social media formed. Then it became bigger andbigger. In 2009, the node standing for ‘‘social media’’ can be iden-tified in the visualization, but social media is not at the center ofthis cluster. Influence of social media keeps growing (outline of thisnode keeps growing) and almost all topics in our dataset wereabsorbed into this cluster. Then social media became the centerof this cluster in the latest two years.

4. Analysis of two branches: Management and computer science

Growth of social media study in management group and com-puter science group are very similar. Both the number of publica-tions about social media and the number of citations are in thesame trend of the whole social media study.

Source

te! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media BUS HORIZONSd-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities J MARKETINGions to Study Word of Mouth Communication MARKET SCIouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews J MARKETING RESa World Transformed by Social Technologies book

Source

he Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media BUS HORIZONSJ MACH LEARN RES

thods and Applications BookAM J SOCIOL

om Scale-Invariant Keypoints INT J COMPUT VISIONt in Social Media P INT C WEB SEARCH W

Table 14Top authors in two branches of social media.

Rank Management Computer science

Freq Author Freq Author

1 25 Kaplan AM 23 Kaplan AM2 15 Godes D 17 Blei DM3 15 Trusov M 13 Leskovec J.4 12 Dellarocas C 11 Wasserman S.5 12 Kozinets RV 10 Kennedy L.6 10 Pang B.7 10 Backstrom L.8 10 Newman MEJ

Table 15Top 6 institutions in two branches of social media.

Rank Management Computer Science

Freq Institution Freq Institution

1 7 Bentley Univ 13 Arizona State Univ2 5 Univ Georgia 6 Chinese Acad Sci3 4 ESCP Europe 6 Univ Arizona4 3 Simon Fraser Univ 5 Univ Illinois5 3 Carnegie Mellon Univ 5 Univ Saskatchewan6 3 Univ Pittsburgh 5 Drexel Univ

Table 16Top 5 journals in two branches of social media.


Freq Journal Freq Journal

1 42 J MARKETING 51 LECT NOTES COMPUT SC2 36 J MARKETING RES 38 COMMUN ACM3 34 BUS HORIZONS 24 BUS HORIZONS4 33 ACAD MANAGE REV 23 J MACH LEARN RES5 31 J CONSUM RES 22 P 17 INT C WORLD WID

Table 17Top keywords in management group of social media.


Freq Keyword Freq Keyword

1 62 Social media 96 Social media2 22 Word-of-mouth 15 Web 2.03 20 Internet 14 Networks4 17 Networks 12 Social networks5 13 Communication 9 Internet

9 Design9 Technology


4.1. Influential references of two branches

Most cited references in the two different branches are not allthe same with the whole field. Publications play fundamental rolesin management group and computer science group are listed inTables 12 and 13. Obviously, Kaplan’s paper ‘‘Users of the world,unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media’’ is thebasic one in both branches. This confirms again that this articleis the leader of this trend. Furthermore, important publications inmanagement group are all works about management, especiallythe Word-of-Mouth marketing. And critical ones for computerscience group are comprehensive, including weak ties theory,social network analysis LDA and other papers in managementand computer science.

4.2. Outstanding authors in the two branches

Like situation of cited references, important authors in the twobranches are different (Table 14). According to citation analysis,

Fig. 6. Development of topic

Kaplan A.M, Godes D, and Trusov M are most influential authorsin management group; While Kaplan A.M, Blei DM and LeskovecJ contributed most to computer science group (Table 15).

4.3. Important institutions and top-tier journals of the two branches

Universities contribute to social media study most in manage-ment group are Bentley Univ, Univ Georgia and ESCP Europe;Arizona State Univ and Chinese Acad Sci are the ones in computerscience group.

Most important journals in management group are JMARKETING, J MARKETING RES and BUS HORIZONS. LECT NOTESCOMPUT SC, COMMUN ACM and BUS HORIZONS are most impor-tant for computer science group.

4.4. Topics and evolution of the two branches

Hot topics in the two branches are coming together but thereare still topics for just one branch. Most popular topics in manage-ment group are ‘‘social media’’, ‘‘word-of-mouth’’, ‘‘internet’’, ‘‘net-works’’ and ‘‘communication’’. Most popular topics in computer

s in management group.

Fig. 7. Development of topics in computer science group.


science are ‘‘social media’’, ‘‘web 2.0’’, ‘‘networks’’, ‘‘social net-works’’, ‘‘internet’’, ‘‘design’’ and ‘‘technology’’. They both focuson social media, internet and network. However, managementgroup is interested in Word-of-Mouth marketing and communica-tion, while computer science group stress web 2.0, design andtechnologies.

Then development of the two groups was analyzed. Comparingthem, we can draw the fusion and seperation of the two groups.Firstly, it is ‘‘organization’’, ‘‘internet’’ and ‘‘technology’’ that haveclose relation with ‘‘social media’’ (although this item was notexist) in management group (Fig. 6). And computer science groupcombined ‘‘design’’ and ‘‘technology’’ with social media study(Fig. 7). Both the two group highlighted technologies.Management group discussed much more than computer sciencegroup about internet and network in this field. Then the new trend(or the second stage) of social media study came. Social mediabecame a potential topic. In this period, computer science groupadopted theories in management group like network. And KaplanA.M and Haenlein Michael in the management group publishedtheir famous article. Though lots of technologies provided by com-puter science group were discussed by management group, man-agement problems are the most visible ones in this social mediastudy trend. This is predictable because emergence of social mediaindustry used technologies far before its birth. (Technologies andinternet were discussed a lot by management group at the start.)With the deeper development of social media study, the twogroups fused more and more. However, management groupexplore the business value of social media like Word-of-Mouthmarketing and other management problems while computerscience group focus on technologies to promote social media use(like web 2.0). This separation keeps the two groupsdistinguishable.

5. Discussion and implication

5.1. Discussion

With data analysis by Citespace II, we had several new findingson the trends of social media research. First, social media studydeveloped rapidly in recent years. Both number of publicationsand number of citations of them keep soaring in recent years. Atthe same time, number of authors participating in social mediastudy and topics combining with social media study are becomingmore and more.

Second, according to the data analysis, we found there wereclearly different development steps on social media study, and2008 is an inflection point. In years around 2008, new trend ofsocial media study formed. The proof can be found in the increaseof publications, authors, references as well as evolution of topics insocial media study (both the top keywords and visualization).Change of keywords and visualization show the evolution map ofsocial media study. Before that, ‘‘social’’ and ‘‘media’’ did not com-bine so tightly. Analysis of centrality of references confirms thatproblems about journalism and other social problems werefocused in this field. According to the similarity of centrality ofauthors in whole timespan, social media study in early time devel-oped quite maturely in related areas. Then new social media studytrend came. Citation of social media dataset kept increasing before2008. This indicates people paid attention to social media studybefore its burst which makes the burst expectable. But there wasno clear point where this trend originated from. After some atten-tion on this topic, critical works were done by some importantauthors (like Kaplan). Then social media study came into the fastdeveloping track. Finally, this new trend of social media study isquite young due to the overlap of references and authors in differ-ent indicators. That is because if important items in the history ofthis new trend are still the hottest one for the recent future, thebasic problems of this field are focused and deterioration of thisfield are not strong enough.

Third, we found there were significant differences between twobranches, including publication, author, institution, journal, andauthors:

(1) The most influential reference is ‘‘Users of the world, unite!The challenges and opportunities of Social Media’’. It is alsothe hottest one in recent future. In fact, this paper is the out-standing leader of social media study as well as the twobranches. ‘‘The strength of weak ties’’ contributed most totransferring knowledge between social media study andother field in the new trend. For the management group,‘‘Monetary Value of Word-of-Mouth Marketing In OnlineCommunities’’ and ‘‘Using online conversations to studyword of mouth communication’’ are influential ones. And‘‘Latent Dirichlet Allocation’’ and ‘‘Social Network Analysis:Methods and Applications’’ are the ones for computerscience group.

(2) Professor Kaplan is the most important author in leadingsocial media study now and in recent future. He is also theone plays great role in the two branches. Authors like


Lenhart A, Putnam RD, Granovet MS, Bandura A and so onare the ones linking other areas up with social media study.For the management group, besides Kaplan, Godes D andTrusov M are also very important. And Blei DM, Leskovec Jand Wasserman S are the ones for computer science group.

(3) Most important institutions are Arizona State Univ and UnivWisconsin for this field. For the management group, they areBentley Univ, Univ Georgia and ESCP Europe. And ArizonaState Univ and Chinese Acad Sci are for the computer sciencegroup.

(4) The most influential journals of social media study are JCOMMUN, COMMUN RES, J COMPUT-MEDIAT COMM andBUS HORIZONS. For management group, J MARKETING, JMARKETING RES and BUS HORIZONS are most important.LECT NOTES COMPUT SC and COMMUN ACM are the onesfor computer science group.

(5) Most important topics in social media study are ‘‘internet’’,‘‘communication’’, ‘‘Facebook’’. Hottest ones are‘‘Facebook’’, ‘‘education’’ and ‘‘media’’. For managementgroup, ‘‘word-of-mouth’’, ‘‘internet’’, ‘‘networks’’ and ‘‘com-munication’’ are most popular ones. And ‘‘web 2.0’’, ‘‘net-works’’ and ‘‘social networks’’ are the ones in computerscience group.

Fusion and separation of the two branches can be depictedaccording to analysis in this study. Firstly, the two groups studiedsocial problems with media from quite different perspective. Thenthe advent of social media industry broke the stability. Thanks tothe technologies used in social media industry are most onesexisted long before born of social media industry, managementgroup lead the new trend on basic of good understanding of thesecomputer science technologies. Then the two branches fused tosome extent. Computer science group adopted management theo-ries to guide their further study and management group learnmore techniques about social media. Although this fusion is con-tinuing now, some separations were made. Management grouppay much more attention to business value of social media studywhile computer science group work hard one technique to pro-mote social media use. In this case, management group has theirspecific topics such as word-of-mouth marketing. And ones like‘‘web 2.0’’ are popular in computer science group.

5.2. Implication

In view of brust topics in the filed of social media in this paper,‘‘education’’ attracts most attentions which concludes CL as itsmain content. It shows that researches in CL under the specialenvironment is increasing but still insufficient which accords withthat Knowledge Society is still a desired aim more than reality(Lytras & De Pablos, 2011). By analysis with the help ofCitespace, we depict an overview of this field witch provide conve-nience for future researches, also, defects in recent researches ofsocial media especially about CL are discovered which need futureresearches. Firstly, most papers about social media and CL study alot about students but less in employees. Due to the widespreaduse of social media, behavior of learning when work in a team ischanging which supports some challenges for scholars. Secondly,some CL platforms are also found with the interaction ofresearches in Management and Computer Science, likeSMLearning and eMUSE which guides better design.

6. Conclusion

This paper mapped the development of social media study froma comprehensive perspective and perspective of two important

branches: management and computer science. Growth of the fieldwas drawn according to the number of publications and citations.Most influential references, hottest references and references con-tributing most to transmission of knowledge between social mediastudy and other fields were analyzed. So were authors, institutions,journals and keywords. With these results, the map of social mediastudy was depicted clearly. Then, with the help of CiteSpace II,topics and its visualization were analyzed carefully to show theevolution of social media study. Finally, the two most importantbranches of social media study – management group and computerscience group were analyzed in the same way. By comparing thetwo branches, difference in references, authors, institutions, jour-nals and topics were pointed out. And the fusion and separationof the two branches in social media study’s development processwere discussed in this paper.

Acknowledgment

The work described in this paper was supported by the NationalNatural Science Foundation of China (No: 71201155), and theScience Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (Grant No.13YJA630073). Additional Funding was received from theSelected Seed Foundation of Tianjin University (No. 60306088).

References

Agha, S., Van Rossem, R., Stallworthy, G., & Kusanthan, T. (2007). The impact of ahybrid social marketing intervention on inequities in access, ownership and useof insecticide-treated nets. Malaria Journal, 6.

Ahlqvist, T., & Tutkimuskeskus, V. T. (2008). Social media roadmaps: Exploring thefutures triggered by social media, VTT.

Anger, I., & Kittl, C. (2011). Social media in European governmental communication.Bagdikian, B. H (1990). The media monopoly. Beacon Press.Bowman, N. D., Westerman, D. K., & Claus, C. J. (2012). How demanding is social

media: Understanding social media diets as a function of perceived costs andbenefits – A rational actor perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28,2298–2305.

Campisi, P., Maiorana, E., Neri, A., & IEEE (2009). Privacy protection in social medianetworks a dream that can come true?

Chen, C. M. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends andtransient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, 57, 359–377.

Child, J. T., Haridakis, P. M., & Petronio, S. (2012). Blogging privacy rule orientations,privacy management, and content deletion practices: The variability of onlineprivacy management activity at different stages of social media use. Computersin Human Behavior, 28, 1859–1872.

Chou, S.-W., & Min, H.-T. (2009). The impact of media on collaborative learning invirtual settings: The perspective of social construction. Computers & Education,52, 417–431.

Claros, I., & Cobos, R. (2013). Social media learning: An approach for composition ofmultimedia interactive object in a collaborative learning environment.

Cochrane, T., & Rhodes, D. (2013). IArchi tech ture: Developing a mobile socialmedia framework for pedagogical transformation. Australasian Journal ofEducational Technology, 29, 372–386.

Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: Theintersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in HumanBehavior, 26, 247–253.

Damiani, E., Lytras, M., & Cudre-Mauroux, P. (2010). Guest editorial: Special issue onhuman-centered web science. World Wide Web-Internet and Web InformationSystems, 13, 1–2.

Eugene, A., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. (2008). Finding high-quality content in social media. WSDM’08 – Proceedings of the 2008 internationalconference on web search and data mining, 2008 (pp. 183–193).

Garcia-Penalvo, F. J., Colomo-Palacios, R., & Lytras, M. D. (2012). Informal learning inwork environments: Training with the Social Web in the workplace. Behaviour& Information Technology, 31, 753–755.

Garcia-Penalvo, F. J., Velazquez-Iturbide, J. A., & Llamas-Nistal, M. (2013). Outcomesof international research projects on socio-semantic technologies applied toeducation. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19, 1496–1499.

George, D. R., Dreibelbis, T. D., & Aumiller, B. (2013). How we used two social mediatools to enhance aspects of active learning during lectures. Medical Teacher, 35,985–988.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: mass media in the making & unmakingof the new left: With a new preface. University of California Press.

Guo, X. T., Vogel, D., Zhou, Z. Y., Zhang, X., & Chen, H. P. (2009). Chaos theory as alens for interpreting blogging. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26,101–127.


Harris & Kandace (2008). Using social networking sites as student engagementtools. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 25, 40.

Jain, P. (2013). 6 Social media insights bound to change your customer support.Forbes.com. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/piyankajain/2013/06/25/6-social-media-insights-bound-to-change-your-customer-support/>.

Kaplan, A. M. (2012). If you love something, let it go mobile: Mobile marketing andmobile social media 4 � 4. Business Horizons, 55, 129–139.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges andopportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Socialmedia? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of socialmedia. Business Horizons, 54, 241–251.

Kittur, A., Suh, B., Chi, E. H., & ACM (2008). Can you ever trust a wiki? Impactingperceived trustworthiness in wikipedia.

Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. S. (2010). Networkednarratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities.Journal of Marketing, 74, 71–89.

Labra Gayo, J. E., Ord Ez De Pablos, P., & Cueva Lovelle, J. M. (2010). WESONET:Applying semantic web technologies and collaborative tagging to multimediaweb information systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 205–209.

Lewis, S., Pea, R., & Rosen, J. (2010). Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning:Mobile social media in generative learning communities. Social ScienceInformation Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 49, 351–369.

Li, X., & Shen, J. (2013). Visualization analysis on key technologies of technicalevolution-in the field of 3G mobile communication. In X.H. Liu, K.F. Zhang, &M.Z. Li, (Eds.), Manufacturing process and equipment (Pts 1–4).

Liu, G., Jiang, R., & Jin, Y. (2014). Sciatic nerve injury repair: A visualized analysis ofresearch fronts and development trends. Neural Regeneration Research, 9,1716–1722.

Lytras, M., & De Pablos, P. O. (2011). Software technologies in knowledgesociety J.UCS special issue. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 17,1219–1221.

Mackey, T. K., & Liang, B. A. (2013). Global reach of direct-to-consumer advertisingusing social media for illicit online drug sales. Journal of Medical InternetResearch, 15. e105–e105.

Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of thepromotion mix. Business Horizons, 52, 357–365.

Moorhead, S. A., Hazlett, D. E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J. K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C.(2013). A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits,and limitations of social media for health communication. Journal of MedicalInternet Research, 15.

Moskaliuk, J., Weber, N., Stern, H., Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Lindstaedt, S. (2011).Evaluation of social media collaboration using task-detection methods. In Kloos,C. D., Gillet, D., Garcia, R. M. G., Wild, F., & Wolpers, M. (Eds.), TowardsUbiquitous Learning, Ec-Tel 2011.

Nielsen (2012). State of the media: The social media report 2012. Featured insights,global, media + entertainment.

Norman, J. (2010). Boomers joining social media at record rate. CBS News.Pelechrinis, K., Zadorozhny, V., & Oleshchuk, V. (2011). A cognitive-based scheme

for user reliability and expertise assessment in Q&A social networks.Popescu, E. (2014). Providing collaborative learning support with social media in an

integrated environment. World Wide Web-Internet and Web Information Systems,17, 199–212.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community,New York. Simon & Schuster.

Santoro, E. (2013). Social media and medical apps: How they can change healthcommunication, education and care. Recenti Progressi in Medicina, 104, 179–180.

Smith, T., Coyle, J. R., Lightfoot, E., & Scott, A. (2007). Reconsidering models ofinfluence: The relationship between consumer social networks and word-of-mouth effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 387–397.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York:The Free Press.

van Laer, T., de Ruyter, K., & Cox, D. (2013). A walk in customers’ shoes: howattentional bias modification affects ownership of integrity-violating socialmedia posts. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 14–27.

Vergeer, M., & Pelzer, B. (2009). Exposure to television, online and offline networkcapital and loneliness. Tijdschrift Voor Communicatiewetenschap, 37, 179–196.

Wang, M., Yang, K. Y., Hua, X. S., & Zhang, H. J. (2010). Towards a relevant anddiverse search of social images. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 12, 829–842.

Wu, J., Chen, Q., & IEEE (2012). Mapping the emerging field of cloud computing:insights from a visualization analysis. In Proceedings 2012 IEEE internationalconference on systems, man, and cybernetics (Smc) (pp. 1794–1799).

Yang, R. (2013). Research focuses & frontiers of information management. In P.Yarlagadda, S. F. Yang, & K. M. Lee, (Eds.), Information technology applications inindustry Ii (Pts 1–4).

Yanping, Z., & Qianmiao, J. (2009). Research on influence pattern for Internetassociation relation monitoring. 2009 Fourth international conference oncooperation and promotion of information resources in science and technology(COINFO 2009) (pp. 173–9).

Zailskaite-Jakste, L., & Kuvykaite, R. (2012). Implementation of communication insocial media by promoting studies at higher education institutions. InzinerineEkonomika-Engineering Economics, 23, 174–188.

Zhao, W. L., Wu, X. A., & Ngo, C. W. (2010). On the annotation of web videos byefficient near-duplicate search. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 12, 448–461.

Zheleva, S., & Zhelev, T. (2011). Integrating alternate reality games and social mediain engineering education. 21st European symposium on computer aided processengineering, 29, 1150–1154.

Zhou, Z. Y., Fang, Y. L., Vogel, D. R., Jin, X. L., & Zhang, X. (2012). Attracted to orlocked in? Predicting continuance intention in social virtual world services.Journal of Management Information Systems, 29, 273–305.

computers in human behaviorapp.mtu.edu.ng/cbas/computer science/mapping development... ·...

Documents