Review of systematic reviews in educational leadership and management: Methods used,topics explored and geographies covered

Abstract

Following the accumulation and diversification of the knowledge base in the field of educational leadership and management, we have witnessed a boom in systematic reviews of different types focusing on a diverse range of topics in specified geographical boundaries. This study aims to gain insight into the nature and composition of this fast-growing body of systematic reviews in educational leadership and management by examining the methods used, the topics explored and the geographies covered in these reviews through a three-dimensional conceptual model. We analysed 236 systematic reviews spread over 60 journals. Descriptive statistics of frequencies and percentages were used to identify trends. Findings suggest that the conceptual model presented provides important insights into the past, present and future of a knowledge base through its focus on the patterns of knowledge evident in systematic reviews. While affirming the widespread recognition of the value of systematic reviews in the field, the results reveal that systematic reviews have largely focused on a narrow range of topics, suggesting evidence available on many widely explored topics that still await to be synthesised. Reviews focusing on methodological issues have been particularly rare. It is also demonstrated that the field itself has attracted significant attention as a unit of analysis, indicating the interest in mapping the research landscape and understanding the dynamics of the field at global, regional and national levels. Based on these findings, potential gaps have been identified, and suggestions have been made for future directions.

Keywords

Systematic reviews educational leadership knowledge production educational management

Introduction

The field of educational leadership and management (EDLM) has expanded significantly in terms of both geographic and topical coverage during the last several decades. The field emerged in the USA in the mid-twentieth century and slowly extended to other Anglo-Saxon countries until the end of the century (Campbell, 1979; Oplatka, 2010). It, however, only became an independent research field for most other Western and non-Western countries after the turn of the millennium (Hallinger and Kovačević, 2021). With the advancements in research methods over the years and various changes and issues encountered in educational systems across countries, the last two decades have witnessed a wide range of topics studied by EDLM scholars worldwide. This means that the knowledge base in the field has been accumulated and diversified a great deal over the years. While reviews of this knowledgebase have long existed in the field, the first conceptual paper focusing on the methodology of systematically reviewing research goes back to the early 2010s (Hallinger, 2013). This paper proposed a framework for systematic reviews, which was used a year later to methodologically examine reviews conducted over 52 years (Hallinger, 2014). Both papers called for more rigorous methods to be employed when reviewing research in the field, in contrast to research reviews conducted during previous eras.

Following this call, the field has witnessed a boom in systematic reviews of different types. During the last decade in particular, there has been a great effort of the field's scholars across nations (e.g. Flessa et al., 2018; Gümüş et al., 2018; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a; Mertkan et al., 2017; Oplatka and Arar, 2017) to integrate the research done in various contexts or on various topics to contribute to the accumulation of the knowledge base from different perspectives. Hallinger and Kovacevic (2021) used the term ‘consolidation’ to identify this period of the field's development. While systematic reviews are now common in the field, we do not yet know which topics or national knowledge bases have been synthesised and how.

Systematic reviews ease the navigation of the field and support evidence-based policy-making by collating, synthesising and disseminating available evidence (Cook et al., 2013) while also directing future research by highlighting common findings and shortcomings of previous research (Decombe, 2018). However, their contribution changes with the review methods used since each method is used for a particular purpose. In addition, focused topics and the geographical coverage of the reviews provide important insights regarding the contributions of the existing reviews to the field as a whole. Therefore, it is important to identify and synthesise the key features of the existing systematic review literature in any field to delineate knowledge bases synthesised and inform future systematic reviews. This became particularly important for the EDLM field, given the rapid increase in the existing systematic reviews during the last decade.

This paper examines the systematic reviews published in the EDLM field since the emergence of the field as a research area through a comprehensive conceptual framework. It focuses on the following research questions:

What is the volume and growth trajectory of systematic reviews in the field of EDLM, and how have these reviews spread across journals over time?

What is the nature of systematic reviews in terms of review methods?

What is the composition of systematic reviews regarding topics and geographical coverage?

What do the nature and composition of existing systematic reviews suggest about the field's evolution and future?

Through extensive searches of Scopus and reference lists of identified papers, we located 236 systematic review studies of various types published between 1979 and 2023, inclusive of both years. Reviewing these studies has not only revealed the nature and composition of the growing body of systematic reviews in the field but also provided significant information regarding the past, present and future of the EDLM knowledge base and scholarship.

Conceptual framework

This review is organised around a three-dimensional conceptual model of systematic reviews (see Figure 1). The first dimension refers to the method. There is now a considerable degree of variation in how systematic reviews are conducted and for what purpose (Gough et al., 2012; Gough, 2013). This variation is described in terms of ‘a family of research approaches that are a form of secondary level analysis (secondary research) that brings together the findings of primary research to answer a research question’ (Newman and Gough, 2020: 4). While these methods share commonalities, each has important methodological differences, uses different types of evidence and is conducted for different reasons to address a wide range of questions (Gough, 2007; Whittemore and Knafl, 2005).

Figure 1.

Three-dimensional conceptual model.

First, we have assigned reviewed articles to one of the seven pre-determined systematic review methods: meta-analysis, bibliometrics, scoping/topographical review, narrative synthesis, meta-synthesis, umbrella review and hybrid review. Meta-analysis aims to integrate findings from quantitative studies using statistical methods to estimate effect size variance based on a body of empirical studies that are similar, if not identical, to one another in terms of the research design (Aguinis et al., 2011; Glass, 1977). Using a large and potentially diverse body of literature, scoping reviews/topographical reviews explore the volume, characteristics and nature of research conducted in a field of interest or on a broad topic to present an overview of the existing scholarship rather than synthesise the findings (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Pham et al., 2014). Such reviews generally use the descriptive content analysis method to qualitatively and/or quantitatively explore the nature and the scope of the existing literature. Bibliometrics is ‘the quantitative study of literatures as they are reflected in bibliographies’ (White and McCain, 1998: 119). Using massive volumes of bibliographic data, it evaluates the contributions of research constituents through performance analysis or portrays the social and structural relationships between these constituents through science mapping (Gutiérrez-Salcedo et al., 2018).

Narrative synthesis is a relatively new method that relies on a systematic and transparent search process to summarise and synthesise the findings of studies included in the review (Popay et al., 2006; Snilstveit et al., 2012; Xiao and Watson, 2019). It differs from narrative review, which often refers to more traditional reviews (Davies, 2000; Paré et al., 2015), ‘in moving beyond a summary of study findings to attempt a synthesis which can generate new insights or knowledge and be more systematic and transparent’ (Mays et al., 2005: 12). Both quantitative and qualitative studies can serve as data sources, but findings are reported in a narrative format (Edwards and Kaimal, 2016; Higginbottom et al., 2015). For example, Hallinger and Heck (1998) were classified as narrative synthesis even though they were quantitatively oriented and used quantitative studies in their analysis because the search process was systematic and transparent while the findings were reported in a narrative format.

Meta-synthesis is the process of synthesising the findings of qualitative studies. It offers novel interpretations and goes beyond the primary studies to present interpretations that ‘will not be found in any one research report but, rather, are inferences derived from taking all of the reports in a sample as a whole’ (Thorne et al., 2004: 1358). Frequently called a systematic review of reviews, umbrella reviews use a sample of systematic reviews to provide an overall picture of the existing evidence on a particular topic based on the information collected and evaluated from a number of systematic reviews (Faulkner et al., 2022; Papatheodorou, 2019). Our paper is an example of an umbrella review that aims to explore the nature and composition of the existing systematic reviews in a specific field of study, EDLM. The hybrid approach uses a combination of any of the six methods explained above and presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of systematic review methods.

Type of review	Purpose	Focus	Overall tendency	Description of the approach	Examples from reviewed studies
Scoping review/topographical review	Describe	Scope of a body of scholarship	Focuses on the development of the field or popular models/theories in the field. Provides information on popular authors, topics, methodological components, etc. Generally use large numbers of studies	Arksey and O’Malley (2005) Peterson et al. (2017) Pham et al. (2014)	Flessa et al. (2021) Hallinger and Bryant (2013b) Gümüş & Bellibaş, (2019) Aravena (2022)
Narrative synthesis	Describe/synthesise	Findings of past research	Focuses on knowledge production regarding specific concept(s). Generally use small numbers of studies	Popay et al. (2006) Rodgers et al. (2009)	Daniëls et al. (2019) Gaol (2023) Lochmiller and Cunningham (2019) Khalifa et al. (2016)
Meta-analysis	Test	Population effects and variability in effect sizes	Tests a relationship between different variables based on the results of previous related quantitative studies. Can use either small or large numbers of studies	Glass (1976) Egger et al. (1997) Kelley and Kelley (2012)	Witziers et al. (2003) Robinson et al. (2008) Karadağ et al. (2015)
Bibliometrics	Describe	Impact of research constituents, collaboration patterns and intellectual structure of a field	Relies on the bibliographic information of the reviewed studies and provides various author, keyword and citation analyses. Generally use large numbers of studies	Donthu et al. (2021) Gutiérrez-Salcedo et al. (2018) Osareh (1996)	Hallinger and Kovačević (2019) Kuzhabekova (2023)
Meta-synthesis	Synthesise/extend	Findings of qualitative research	Re-analyses the findings of the reviewed papers and produce new knowledge. Often aims to develop new models/theories. Generally use small numbers of studies	Thorne et al., (2004) Zimmer (2006) Walsh (2005)	Gümüş, Hallinger, et al. (2021)
Umbrella reviews	Describe, synthesise, test or extend (depending on the nature of the included reviews)	Findings or the scope of multiple systematic reviews	Collects information from multiple systematic reviews to compare and contrast findings to provide an overall picture of the existing evidence on a particular topic	Papatheodorou, (2019) Aromataris et al. (2015)	Hallinger (2014) Tan et al., (2024)

Note: Adapted from Xiao and Watson (2019).

The second dimension, topic, can be divided into four: a field (e.g. EDLM), a theme (e.g. leadership effects), methodology (e.g. statistical applications) and a journal (e.g. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership). When the topic is the entire field, the review includes articles regardless of the theme as long as they focus on the field of interest (e.g. Hammad and Hallinger, 2017). Reviews focusing on a specific theme include articles only if they focus on the theme examined (e.g. Hobson and Sharp, 2005), while those concentrating on methodology explore methods adopted in EDLM studies. The scope of reviews focusing on methodology is quite extensive and can range from the formulation of research questions, data collection and analysis to reporting (Mbuagbaw et al., 2020). Lastly, some reviews are interested in the coverage of certain journals without any thematic or methodological focus.

The third dimension of our conceptual framework is about geographical coverage, which provides insights into the geographical boundary of included systematic reviews. It can take three forms: global, regional and country-specific. Global reviews take into account the topic without any geographical restrictions. They include papers regardless of where the study was conducted or where the authors were located. Reviews examining a topic on a regional or country-specific scale employ a regional or country-specific perspective. They include papers in the study corpus only if they focus on a specific region (e.g. Asia) or a specific country (e.g. South Africa).

Overall, each review focuses on a topic at a global, regional or country-specific scale using a variety of approaches (e.g. Bennett et al., 2007; Breault and Breault, 2010; Bush et al., 2018; Trujillo, 2013). Reviews broadest in scope focus on an entire field (topic) on a global scale (geographical focus), most probably using scoping/topographical review or bibliometrics methods (e.g. Hallinger and Kovačević, 2019).

Method

Selection of the reviews

This study used PRISMA guidelines to review systematic reviews published in the field of EDLM (Moher et al., 2015). At the outset, 24 journals were selected to identify the articles for this review. Twenty-one of these were core EDLM journals identified by Hallinger and Kovačević (2019), and three were educational review journals that publish reviews in the field of education (see Table 2 for the journal list). We started with a journal-based search to ensure we entirely covered the most relevant EDLM sources. This stage was followed by a database search not bounded by field-specific journals and reference checking to extend our reach and identify relevant papers published elsewhere, resulting in a considerable number of additional papers published in 36 additional journals not included in our original journal list.

Table 2.

List of journals included in the initial journal-based search.

Educational leadership and management journals
1	NASSP Bulletin (NASSP)
2	Educational Leadership (EdLd)
3	Economics of Education Review (EER)
4	Education and Urban Society (EUS)
5	Journal of Educational Administration (JEA)
6	International Journal of Educational Management (IJEM)
7	Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ)
8	Urban Education (UrbEd)
9	Educational Management Administration and Leadership (EMAL)
10	School Leadership and Management (SLAM)
11	Management in Education (MiE)
12	School Effectiveness and School Improvement (SESI)
13	Journal of Educational Administration and History (JEAH)
14	Improving Schools (ImpSch)
15	International Journal of Leadership in Education (IJLE)
16	Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education (JPEE)
17	Journal of Educational Change (JEC)
18	Advances in Educational Administration (AEA)
19	International Journal of Management in Education (IJME)
20	Education as Change (EAC)
21	Leadership and Policy in Schools (LPS)
Educational review journals
22	Educational Research Review (ERR)
23	Review of Educational Research (RER)
24	Review of Research in Education (RRE)

Pre-determined keywords of ‘science mapping’, ‘bibliometric’, ‘meta-analysis’, ‘systematic review’, ‘critical synthesis’, ‘meta-synthesis’, ‘meta-ethnography’, ‘topographical review’ and ‘review’ were identified to search EDLM journals. Selected keywords were based on our understanding of the literature on systematic reviews and reflect the core systematic review types. We also used eight keywords when searching core educational review journals to delimit reviews published in these outlets to EDLM. These keywords were ‘educational lead*’, ‘educational adminis*’, ‘educational manage*’, ‘school manage*’, ‘principal’, ‘lead*’, ‘manage*’ and ‘administrat*’. After identification of the keywords, we searched Scopus. At this initial stage, we delimited our search to articles published in 24 journals specified in Table 2. The search process was completed in April 2024 and included articles published before 2024.

The search yielded a total of 1523 papers, 1362 of which were from EDLM journals and 161 from educational review journals. We followed the initial journal-based search with a more comprehensive unbounded search using the following search string:

(TITLE (review) OR KEY (review) AND TITLE (educational OR school AND leader* OR manage* OR administra* OR principal) OR KEY (educational OR school AND leader* OR manage* OR administra* OR principal) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY (teaching OR university OR “higher education” OR health OR college OR medic* OR nurs* OR surg*) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY (youth OR market*)) AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MEDI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “COMP”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “BIOC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENGI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHAR”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “HEAL”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “NURS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “IMMU”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “DENT”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENER”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “AGRI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATH”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “EART”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ECON”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHYS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “VETE”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATE”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “CHEM”))

This search yielded 296 articles, 109 already identified through a journal-based search. These search strategies resulted in 1710 articles imported into Excel and screened for relevance using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Reviews published elsewhere other than journals, non-English reviews and reviews outside the field of EDLM research (e.g. Johnson, 2012), as well as those concentrating on higher education (e.g. Maheshwari, 2023) or educational policy (e.g. Kirsten, 2020), were excluded outright. Since our review does not aim to assess the quality of the selected systematic reviews, we chose a relatively broad approach to differentiate systematic reviews from traditional literature reviews. Those focusing on the EDLM field were included only if the review was defined as systematic by authors or if, at the very least, the data source was clarified and inclusion criteria were mentioned. This process reduced the number of articles to 208.

To enhance comprehensiveness, articles cited in all of the included reviews published in the last 3 years (2021–2023), a conceptual paper on the systematic review methodology (Hallinger, 2013), and three umbrella reviews previously conducted in the field (Hallinger, 2014; Tan et al., 2024; Wu and Shen, 2022) were examined for potentially relevant articles, revealing 28 new review articles. A total of 236 papers published in 60 journals were included in the review. Figure 2 gives an overview of the sampling and selection process.

Figure 2.

Search and selection process.

Data extraction and analysis

Data extraction included author name(s), the title of the article, year of publication, journal, geographical focus (i.e., global, regional and country-specific) and topic (i.e., entire field, journal, method and a specific theme). Examples of how we coded the reviews are provided as a supplemental file. Following data extraction, reviewed studies were classified into one of the seven pre-determined methods previously summarised in Table 1. The first author reviewed all articles and classified them based on the joint understanding established between the authors during the creation of Table 1. For the articles that do not easily fall into one category, a few Zoom meetings were conducted between both authors, and final decisions were made jointly. Descriptive statistics of frequencies and percentages were used to analyse data. Sample coding is provided in Table A1.

Findings

Volume by publication year and publication outlets

Data suggest that the first systematic review conducted in the field of EDLM dates back to 1979 (Campbell, 1979), which mapped and critically reviewed articles published in a single journal, Educational Administration Quarterly, over 14 years (1965–1978). This supports Hallinger's findings that ‘the first “systematic reviews of research” in educational leadership only began to appear in our journals around 1980’ (2013: 128). Papers published before Campbell (1979) and previously classified as reviews of research (e.g. Briner and Campbell, 1964; Campbell and Faber, 1961; Erickson, 1967; Haller, 1979; Lipham, 1964) were not classified as systematic because they employed a normative approach consistent with ad hoc method of reviewing as was previously indicated in Hallinger's seminal paper on how to conduct systematic reviews (2013). Thirty systematic reviews were published sporadically between 1980 and 2010, with an around average of 1 article a year. As Figure 3 indicates, there was a progressive increase from 2011 to 2023. Since 2011, 204 systematic reviews have been published, accounting for 86.4% of all systematic reviews in our database. Close to 70% of all systematic reviews were published since 2017, the year systematic reviews started to spread over prominent journals.

Figure 3.

Systematic reviews per year in the field of educational leadership and management.

Our analysis demonstrates that the reviews are spread over 60 journals. Educational Administration Quarterly featured the first systematic review in our dataset (Campbell, 1979). The journal continued to be the main outlet until 1998, with only two other journals (i.e., JEA and RER) occasionally publishing systematic reviews in EDLM until 1998 and nine other journals until 2010. Systematic reviews were observed to spread to 29 outlets before 2020. The most frequent sources of these reviews were Educational Management, Administration and Leadership (n = 41), Journal of Educational Administration (n = 33), Educational Administration Quarterly (n = 25) and School Leadership and Management (n = 21).

Review methods

Figure 4 shows the number of review studies by type. Among the seven categories identified before, narrative synthesis represents the majority (42.8%) of reviewed articles (e.g. Bush and Glover, 2016; Lochmiller and Cunningham, 2019; Tan, 2024), followed by scoping/topographical reviews with 24.2% (e.g. Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a; Harris et al., 2019; Hosseingholizadeh et al., 2021). Hybrid reviews comprised 14% of the articles (e.g. Nguyen et al., 2020; Tamadoni et al., 2024; Thompson et al., 1997), followed by meta-analysis 8.9% (e.g. Leithwood and Sun, 2012; Robinson et al., 2008; Witziers et al., 2003) and bibliometrics 7.6% (e.g. Hallinger, et al., 2020; Hallinger, 2020; Kuzhabekova, 2023). Umbrella reviews (e.g. Tan et al., 2024) and meta-synthesis (Gümüş, Hallinger, et al., 2021) comprised a particularly small number of articles, 1.7% and 0.8%, respectively.

Figure 4.

Distribution of articles over review types.

Systematic reviews in the field were found to have started with scoping/topographical reviews, the first mapping Educational Administration Quarterly (Campbell, 1979), exploring the nature of the articles featured in the journal and ways EAQ articles relate to field-specific literature. Hybrid reviews were introduced to the field in the early 1980s (Leithwood and Montgomery, 1982), followed by meta-analysis and narrative synthesis in the 1990s (Eagly et al., 1992; Hallinger and Heck, 1996). These reviews all focused on school principals, with Leithwood and Montgomery examining the role elementary school principals play in programme improvement, Eagly et al. testing the impact of gender on the leadership styles of school principals and Hallinger and Heck synthesising the scholarship on the relationship between the principal's role and school effectiveness.

Bibliometric reviews and umbrella reviews were the latest additions to the review types. The first umbrella review was conducted in 2014 (Hallinger, 2014) and focused on reviews of research in educational leadership. Methodologically examining reviews of research published in nine prominent field-specific journals, this review identified ‘exemplary reviews’ and illuminated patterns of methodological strengths and weaknesses, calling for reviews that are both systematic and transparent. As we demonstrate in this paper, it has played a key role in the increase of systematic reviews in the field by setting the direction for research reviews. The first bibliometric study dates back to 2007 (Haas et al., 2007). Based on a database of 483 documents, this review focused on the citation frequency, total citation counts EAQ articles received and the ratio of citations to articles published in the journal. More recent bibliometric reviews were observed to combine performance analysis with more advanced methods of science mapping. Overall, it is still quite a new review method in the field; the vast majority (72.2%) have been conducted since 2020.

Although reviews employing narrative synthesis have accumulated the highest total citations (6099; M = 60.4), meta-analytic reviews yielded the highest citations per paper (2855; M = 136). These review types not only excelled in terms of citation counts but also featured the most influential reviews. With a citation count of 1209, the most influential review was a meta-analysis measuring the differential effects of leadership on student outcomes (Robinson et al., 2008). This was followed by Hallinger and Heck's (1996) narrative synthesis on the role of school principals in school effectiveness and Hallinger and Heck's (1998) narrative synthesis on principals’ contribution to school effectiveness with a citation count of 811 and 690, respectively.

Topical focus and geographical coverage

Classification of included documents in terms of their topical focus revealed that the vast majority of systematic reviews focused on a specific theme (n = 183; 77.5%), followed by the generic studies of the field of EDLM (n = 34; 14.4%) and a much lesser extent on journals (n = 11; 4.7%) and methodology (n = 8; 3.4%). In this section, we start with the generic studies of the field, which are followed by reviews focusing on a specific theme, journals and methodology. We also presented the distribution of the geographical coverage of the reviews under each classification.

The field of EDLM

Systematic reviews in the field of EDLM have embraced local, regional and global orientations towards systematically reviewing the existing scholarship, with 10 having a global focus with no geographical limitations, 16 focusing on a particular region and 8 on a particular country. Arab societies (n = 6; Attari and Outum, 2019; Attari and Essa, 2023; Hallinger and Hammad, 2019; Hammad and Hallinger, 2017; Hammad et al., 2022; Oplatka and Arar, 2017), Asia (n = 5; Hallinger, 2020; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c; Hallinger and Chen, 2015) and Africa (n = 3; Hallinger, 2018, 2019a, 2019b) were found to dominate regional systematic reviews with only two reviews conducted on the state of the field in Latin America (Castillo and Hallinger, 2018; Hallinger, 2020), one on Muslim societies (Ahmed, 2023a) and one on Europe (Kovačević and Hallinger, 2020). Those focusing on a particular country/jurisdiction concentrated on Hong Kong (n = 3; Hallinger and Bryant, 2016; Hallinger et al., 2013; Szeto et al., 2015), Türkiye (n = 2; Bellibaş and Gümüş, 2019; Gümüş et al., 2020), South Africa (n = 1; Hallinger, 2019b), Israel (n = 1; Hallinger and Bryant, 2016), Iran (n = 1; Hosseingholizadeh et al., 2021) and Malaysia (n = 1; Adams et al., 2023). Four different review methods were used to explore the field, as Table 3 demonstrates:

Table 3.

Distribution of articles focusing on the field over review types and scope.

Geographic coverage	Total count	Scope	Bibliometrics	Hybrid	Narrative synthesis	Scoping/topographical
Global	10	Min 436	4	0	2	4
Global	10	Max 22492	4	0	2	4
Regional	16	Min 20	3	0	1	12
Regional	16	Max 1171	3	0	1	12
Country specific	8	Min 151	1	1	0	6
Country specific	8	Max 565	1	1	0	6

Scope: Size of the database analysed.

Unsurprisingly, bibliometric studies included the highest number of articles in their study corpus, with an average of 6916 documents. The size of the database analysed by bibliometric studies ranged from 313 (Gümüş et al., 2020; country-specific focus on Türkiye) to 22,492 (Hallinger and Kovačević, 2021; global focus), those by scoping/topographical reviews from 48 (Castillo and Hallinger, 2018; regional focus on Latin America) to 1651 (Tian and Huber, 2021; global focus). Of the three narrative syntheses, one did not mention the size of the database analysed (Oplatka, 2009); one had a fairly large size, especially for reviews employing narrative synthesis (n = 436; Oplatka, 2020); and the other 48 (Oplatka and Arar, 2017). The only hybrid review focusing on the field at the country-specific level (Szeto et al., 2015) analysed 161 documents, all originating from Hong Kong.

Regardless of the level of analysis, the majority of these reviews concentrated on knowledge production, synthesising trends in EDLM research through scoping/topographical reviews (n = 22; 64.7%) or examining the intellectual structure, influential entities (i.e., authors, documents, journals), thematic strands and changes within the field through bibliometrics (n = 8; 23.5%). Tables 4 and 5 reveal the most frequently studied trends in topographical/scoping and analysis in bibliometric reviews.

Table 4.

Top five most frequently studied trends in field-based topographical reviews (n = 23).

Trends	Publication count
Topic	16
Volume	15
Research methods	15
Growth trajectory	14
Geographical distribution	13

Table 5.

Most frequently used analysis in field-based bibliometric studies (n = 8).

Analysis	Publication Count
Citation analysis	8
Co-citation analysis	6
Keyword co-occurrence	3

A small number of papers that examined the field through narrative synthesis (n = 3; 8.8%) or hybrid reviews (n = 1; 2.9%) paid more attention to the research trends and findings of the reviewed studies. These reviews focused on implications for policy-makers, leaders and trainers (Oplatka, 2020), epistemological identities, meanings and boundaries in the field (Oplatka, 2009) as well as major themes in the Arabic literature (Oplatka and Arar, 2017) and Hong Kong (Szeto et al., 2015).

As is evident in Tables 4 and 5, systematic reviews of the field have largely focused on modal trends in knowledge production from developing societies or regions, revealing ample evidence on the quantifiable aspects of knowledge production in these contexts. Typically, these reviews were largely descriptive, focusing on knowledge production patterns in isolation from the contextual conditions and forces that shape knowledge production in specific geographies rather than critical or evaluative. This suggests while there is now significant evidence about how knowledge production has evolved in specific geographies, our understanding of why this has been the case is highly limited. A few exceptions were identified (Hallinger and Bryant, 2013b; Mertkan et al., 2017), which concentrated on the regional or country-specific factors impacting knowledge production. In line with the descriptive approach employed, field-based reviews also fall short on discussions about power dynamics influencing knowledge production in any field, in particular, the power scholars from different geographies have through editorships or editorial board memberships. One review has explored this dimension (Mertkan et al., 2017). Third, these reviews have largely split knowledge production in the field into focused populations, not putting knowledge production into perspective by comparing trends across countries or regions or with general trends within the field.

A specific theme

Of 183 reviews focusing on a specific theme, 39 focused on studies about a specific country, while three concentrated on a specific region. The remaining 141 (77%) did not have a country-specific or regional delimitation. While reviews examining topics from a broad and, hence, decontextualised perspective are valuable, this imbalance suggests overviews of country-specific or regional evidence, which enrich our understanding of how political, demographic and socio-cultural realities may influence EDLM practices that are relatively low in number. Implicit in this imbalance is the search for a universal model of leadership and management free from contextual and cultural forces, which has long marked the field despite concerns that conceptualising leadership ‘somehow divorced from the powerful political, demographic and cultural influences’ (Dimmock and Tan, 2013: 1).

Table 6 shows the most prevalent themes these reviews concentrated on and the review methods they used, while Table 7 demonstrates the geographical delimitation of these reviews. In total, narrative synthesis was the most frequently and widely used method to synthesise evidence on specific themes (n = 97; 53%), followed by hybrid reviews (n = 31; 16.9%) and meta-analysis (n = 20; 10.9%). It is important to note that half of all reviews employing meta-analysis focused on leadership effects on student outcomes (e.g. Karadağ, 2020; Liebowitz and Porter, 2019). Depending on the review method, topic and geographical coverage, the size of the database reviewed was observed to change and range from 14 (narrative synthesis, Mexico, school principalship; Torres-Arcadia et al., 2022) to 1613 (bibliometrics, global, school change and improvement; Kovačević and Hallinger, 2019).

Table 6.

Most prevalent topics and the review methods used.

	Total count	Bibliometric analysis	Hybrid	Meta-analysis	Narrative synthesis	Scoping/topographical	Umbrella review	Meta-synthesis
Leadership styles/approaches	47	1	11	7	19	8	0	1
School principalship	37	3	7	2	18	7	0	0
Leadership effects	22	0	3	14	3	0	2	0
School leadership	14	0	1	0	8	5	0	0
Social justice and equity	10	1	1	0	7	1	0	0
Middle leadership	7	0	2	0	3	2	0	0
Gender	6	1	1	2	1	0	0	1
Teacher collaboration/learning communities	6	1	1	1	3	0	0	0
School change and improvement	6	1	0	0	5	0	0	0
Leadership preparation and development	5	0	1	0	4	0	0	0
School effectiveness	5	0	0	1	3	1	0	0

Note: The number of reviews does not add up because some focus on more than one topic.

Table 7.

Geographical delimitation of the most frequently synthesised themes in reviews.

Theme	Country
School principalship	Taiwan (2)	Singapore (1)	Malaysia (1)	Vietnam (1)	China (2)	Indonesia (1)	USA (2)	Mexico (1)
Leadership styles/approaches	USA (2)	Taiwan (3)	Malaysia (3)	Türkiye (3)	Singapore (2)	China (1)	Spain (1)
Leadership effects	USA (3)	Türkiye (3)	High Income OECD Countries (1)	Taiwan (1)
School leadership	Zambia (1)	Ireland (1)	South Africa (1)	Australia (1)	United Arab Emirates (1)
Social justice and equity
Leadership preparation and development	USA (1)
Gender	Zimbabwe (1)	USA (1)	Taiwan (2)	China (1)	Hong Kong (1)
School effectiveness
Teacher collaboration and learning communities	China (1)
School change and improvement	China (1)
Middle leadership	Canada (1)	USA (1)	Australia (1)	UK (1)	New Zealand (1)	Hong Kong (1)	Netherlands (1)	China (1)

Note: The number of reviews does not add up because some focus on more than one country.

Leadership styles/approaches (n = 47) and school principalship (n = 37) stood out as the most frequently studied topics. Reviews about leadership styles/approaches often focused on a specific leadership approach and were dominated by instructional leadership (n = 10; e.g. Boyce and Bowers, 2018; Ng et al., 2015), teacher leadership (n = 9; e.g. Wang and Ho, 2020; York-Barr and Duke, 2004), transformational leadership (n = 7; e.g. Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005; Sun and Leithwood, 2012) and distributed leadership (n = 6; e.g. Mifsud, 2024; Tian et al., 2016). Studies on turnaround leadership (n = 2; e.g. Liu, 2020), spiritual leadership (n = 2; e.g. Subhaktiyasa et al., 2023), student leadership (n = 2; e.g. Tortosa Martínez et al., 2022), strategic leadership (n = 1; Carvalho et al., 2021), ethical leadership (n = 1; Ahmed, 2023b) and authentic leadership (n = 1; Ahmed, 2023c) were synthesised to a much lesser extent while servant leadership has not been reviewed.

These reviews mostly have a global focus (n = 32; e.g. Gümüş et al., 2018; Okiri and Hercz, 2023), with only 15 reviews synthesising country-specific evidence (e.g. Hallinger et al., 2018). The vast majority of those (n = 9; e.g. Li, 2022; Pan et al., 2015) focused on Asia. It is important to note that no country-specific or regional reviews were conducted on distributed, spiritual, strategic, ethical, authentic and student leadership, while 42.9% of those focusing on transformational leadership, 60% of those focusing on instructional leadership and 22.2% of those focusing on teacher leadership had a country-specific focus. No regional reviews were conducted on leadership styles.

Studies reviewing research on school principalship have concentrated on a variety of sub-topics. These include novice principals (e.g. Kılınç and Gümüş, 2021; Oplatka, 2012), mentoring principals (Hansford and Ehrich, 2006; Hobson and Sharp, 2005), recruitment and selection of principals (Lee and Mao, 2023), pathways to principalship (Montecinos et al., 2022), principal turnover and succession (Aravena, 2022; Rangel, 2018), problems and challenges faced by school principals (Tintoré et al., 2020), principals’ time use (Hochbein et al., 2021), principals’ data use and decision-making processes (Kahn and Bullis, 2021) or reviewed school principalship with no focus on a specific sub-theme (e.g. Hallinger et al., 2015; Walker and Qian, 2015; Walker et al., 2012). The majority of the reviews mapping school principalship have maintained a global focus (n = 25), with only 11 reviews delimited by country (e.g. Eagly et al., 1992; Ng et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2015; Rangel, 2018; Torres-Arcadia et al., 2022) and one by region (Hammad and Alazmi, 2022). As Table 7 shows, the majority of the countries examined are in Asia.

These topics were followed by leadership effects (n = 22). Most frequently (n = 15), these reviews employed meta-analysis as the review method to estimate effect size solely on student outcomes (n = 9; e.g. Robinson et al., 2008), school outcomes (n = 1; Chin, 2007), school outcomes and student outcomes (n = 1; Liebowitz and Porter, 2019), organisational variables (n = 2; Çogaltay and Karadag, 2016; Sisman, 2016), teacher efficacy (n = 1; Kaya and Demir, 2022) and teacher trust (n = 1; Sun et al., 2023).

Journals and methodology

Seven of the eleven reviews examining a particular journal focused on Educational Administration Quarterly (Byrd, 2007; Byrd and Eddy, 2009; Campbell, 1979; Hallinger, 2023; Hass et al., 2007; Murphy et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2017), two on Journal of Educational Administration (Byrd and Eddy, 2009; Oplatka, 2012), one on Educational Management, Administration and Leadership (Hallinger and Kovačević, 2022), one on Journal of Educational Change (Garcia-Huidobro et al., 2017) and one on Educational Administration in Theory and Practice (Balcı and Apaydın, 2009). One article (Byrd and Eddy, 2009) focuses on two journals, Educational Administration Quarterly and Journal of Educational Administration. These reviews generally aim to explore the development of the field through the selected journal from various perspectives, while two of these reviews also have particular methodological concerns regarding the publications in the selected journal(s). Byrd (2007) focused on empirical articles published in EAQ in a 10-year frame to identify if confidence intervals and effect sizes were reported as well as interpreted correctly. Byrd and Eddy (2009) included two journals, EAQ and JEA, in their review, and focused on the statistical applications in the empirical studies published in these two journals.

We also identified six review articles focused on methodological aspects of empirical studies in the field, going beyond one or two journals. For example, Berkovich and Grinshtain (2021) focused specifically on the relevant qualitative research and explored the rigour strategies and ethical steps reported in them. Berkovich and Eyal (2017), on the other hand, focused on a specific topic, educational leaders and emotions, and investigated the methodological patterns in the relevant studies. Similarly, Hallinger (2011) and Hallinger et al. (2013) focused on a specific topic, instructional leadership, and reviewed the relevant studies that used the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) to explore the methodological patterns in those studies, while Feldhoff et al. (2016) focused on designs and methods in school improvement research. Lastly, Hallinger (2014) was interested in the methodological rigours of review studies in the field and identified a set of exemplary reviews through his analysis.

It is important to note that all but one reviewed journal are prominent journals published in the inner-centre core Anglophone contexts claiming to be highly ‘international’. It is quite surprising to see the main trend evident in field-specific reviews – examining regional and country-specific knowledge production in the field – is mostly lacking in journal-based reviews, except one (Hallinger and Kovačević, 2022). It would be quite interesting to examine how well different journals have responded to the calls to develop a truly international and contextually bounded scholarship by moving away from the ‘Anglo-American axis of influence’ (Sugrue, 2005: 3) and how this changed over time.

Discussion

Limitations

This review has three major limitations. First, we focused explicitly on journal articles published in English, excluding conference papers, books or book chapters published in English and all types of contributions in other languages. This means potentially relevant content published in outlets other than journals and languages other than English has been left out. Second, our search strategy excluded reviews concentrating on EDLM research in higher education contexts or educational policy. Thus, the findings of this review do not apply to these specific areas. We also caution readers that our results about review methods only reflect on the classifications identified and named in our conceptual framework. We acknowledge that review methods have been defined, named and utilised differently across fields, and variations can be found even within the same field. While creating a simplified classification that covers a broad range of reviews was necessary to make this comprehensive review possible, it is crucial to note that some other review methods (e.g. integrative review and critical review) could have also been used. Third, due to the nature and the aims of this review, the findings of the reviews included in our database were not examined. Hence, our review does not elaborate on how systematic reviews have particularly contributed to the different areas of the educational administration knowledge base. Lastly, we used a relatively broad approach to identify systematic reviews by differentiating them from traditional literature reviews, while some of the selected systematic reviews may not be fully compatible with the recommended systematic review approaches. Further research could use more specific criteria to assess the quality of systematic reviews from different aspects (e.g. research questions and goals, search and selection processes and analysis and synthesis) of applying the systematic review method (see Hallinger, 2013, 2014).

Interpretation of findings and suggestions for future reviews

This review has made two important contributions to the literature. First, we applied a comprehensive conceptual framework specific to umbrella reviews. Even though models focusing on similar dimensions were used in previous systematic reviews (e.g. Bellibaş and Gümüş, 2019; Hallinger, 2020), our model includes aspects such as the type of systematic review and the relevant classifications. Previous frameworks used in umbrella reviews concentrate either on synthesising the findings on a particular topic to assess whether the results of existing systematic reviews provide a consistent or contradictory evidence base (Aromataris et al., 2015) or on methodological aspects (Hallinger, 2014). In contrast, the three-dimensional conceptual model presented in our review focuses broadly on the patterns of knowledge production evident in systematic reviews, which provide significant information about the past, present and future of a knowledge base or a scholarship, with specific attention to the review methods, investigated topics and geographical coverage. This allows for a better understanding of how the reviews of existing research across different contexts vary regarding applied methods and topical foci. Therefore, this multidimensional approach would enhance the rigour and transparency of umbrella reviews, facilitate the identification of gaps and guide future reviews. Thus, it significantly contributes to the umbrella review literature by providing a clear, robust and adaptable tool for comprehensive syntheses.

Second, we aimed to reveal the growth trajectory of systematic reviews conducted in the field of EDLM, their spread across journals over time and the nature and composition in terms of review approaches employed along their geographical and topical focus. Our intention, in so doing, was to shed light on the field's evolution and draw suggestions for future research based on the nature and composition of existing systematic reviews.

Our results clearly show a dramatic increase in the number of systematic reviews conducted in EDLM, indicating the field has moved into a new phase in which scholars increasingly examine EDLM research to synthesise existing evidence, also assessing what has been studied, by whom, where, how and to what degree. The growth pattern of systematic reviews, both in terms of their number and spread over journals, suggests these reviews were in their infancy from 1979 to 2012, followed by a booming period. Rapid proliferation in the number of systematic reviews over the growing number of journals demonstrates widespread recognition of their value in the field and their contribution to knowledge accumulation, which shows no signs of fading away soon. This is consistent with the broader trend in the social sciences, where systematic reviews have become increasingly popular as a way to synthesise research findings (Gough et al., 2012; Petticrew and Roberts, 2008).

While this move is laudable in many respects, the contributions systematic reviews make to the advancement of knowledge depend very much on their reporting and methodological quality, which can vary widely across reviews. Quality assessment analyses conducted in other disciplines suggest an exponential increase in the volume of systematic reviews might, at the very least, lead to information overload and a decrease in quality (Lee et al., 2022; Riaz et al., 2016). Because no quality assessment analyses have been conducted in the EDLM field since Hallinger's review in 2014, we do not know how this growth has influenced the review quality. It is, thereby, imperative that future umbrella reviews assess the methodological and reporting rigour of systematic reviews published in the EDLM field. The conceptual framework suggested by Hallinger (2013) could be used to assess whether quality caught up with quantity.

In addition, the reviews have largely focused on a narrow range of topics, with the majority concentrating on school principals, leadership styles/approaches and leadership effects. The focus of reviews on such themes indicates the significant role these aspects play in EDLM research. School principalship, for example, has been identified as a critical factor that significantly influences the school’s effectiveness by setting the direction and shaping school culture (Hallinger and Heck, 1998). The focus on leadership styles/approaches and their effects reflects the increasing emphasis on certain leadership models such as instructional leadership, transformational leadership and distributed leadership (Leithwood et al., 2008) and their influence on the various school outcomes (Özdemir et al., 2024; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Robinson et al., 2008). However, studies on some other leadership styles/approaches (e.g. servant leadership) have been underexplored. Reviewing the literature using narrative synthesis on various leadership styles/approaches, even if they are not large in size, could provide a nuanced understanding of the role and the effect of school leadership. Given the number of reviews on principal leadership and leadership styles/approaches, it is also important to note compiling evidence from existing reviews through umbrella reviews is both timely and relevant to provide an overall assessment of these topics. Bibliometric studies on leadership styles/approaches are also rare (Hallinger et al., 2020 and Gümüş, Arar et al., 2021). These studies could unpack the evolution of these styles/approaches while also shedding light on emerging trends and areas in these topics. It is important for future research to focus on the evolutionary nuances of leadership styles/approaches through bibliometric analysis.

In addition, systematic reviews focusing on the methodology of the empirical studies have been quite rare, although such reviews might provide useful meta-insights into the evolution and methodological rigour of the field. This mirrors the need for more methodological reviews in the EDLM field to enhance research quality and transparency. It is also quite surprising to note no topographical/scoping reviews were conducted on gender, teacher collaboration, school change and improvement and leadership preparation and development. These reviews would enhance our understanding of modal trends in research on these topics and the gaps in our knowledge.

Our results also suggest that the field itself has attracted considerable attention as a unit of analysis, with scholars largely exploring knowledge production in the field through topographical/scoping reviews or bibliometrics. While the interest in topographical/scoping reviews indicates the field’s interest in providing comprehensive overviews and mapping the research landscape (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005), the increasing use of bibliometric analyses suggests a growing interest in understanding the structure and dynamics of the field (Moed, 2006). This scholarship mostly originates from geographies outside traditional Anglo-American centres, providing important insights regarding the development of the field and the current trends across the world. However, they solely focus on quantifiable modal trends evident in reviewed literature through content analysis or the analysis of the bibliographic data. Exploring quantifiable trends provides an important but limited aspect of the EDLM field, which is highly complex in nature with diverse conceptual lenses, epistemological issues, varied topics and significant shifts as a result of changing politics and policies (Wang et al., 2017). Consequently, the continued development of educational leadership scholarship requires an enriched understanding of diversification in the field that includes but goes beyond quantifiable trends in geographical diversity. This would, nonetheless, require review methods such as narrative synthesis and meta-synthesis.

While the dominance of reviews focusing on specific countries or regions (particularly Asia) reaffirms the contextual nature of educational administration and leadership, only limited attention has been paid to the socio-political, socio-cultural and socio-economic conditions that shape knowledge production in those countries and regions. In so doing, they provide rather overall snapshots of the state of scholarship originating from a specified geography at a specified period, with rarely sufficient explanation of why this is the case. It is also rare for these reviews to put knowledge originating from specified societies into perspective by comparing trends across countries and with the general trend within the field (Hallinger, 2020). Therefore, umbrella reviews of a more comparative nature, with particular attention to the social contexts, are desirable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our umbrella review provides a rich and nuanced picture of the EDLM field by highlighting key trends, research foci and methodologies used in the existing systematic reviews. It also points to potential gaps and future directions, such as the need for more reviews on underexplored topics (e.g. servant leadership and ethical leadership) and regions (e.g. Europe and Latin America), and the need for more methodological and comparative reviews. Overall, this review offers valuable insights for future research and systematic reviews in the field, as well as a new conceptual framework for umbrella reviews.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ema-10.1177_17411432241291197 - Supplemental material for Review of systematic reviews in educational leadership and management: Methods used, topics explored and geographies covered

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ema-10.1177_17411432241291197 for Review of systematic reviews in educational leadership and management: Methods used, topics explored and geographies covered by Sefika Mertkan and Sedat Gümüş in Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sedat Gümüş

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Sefika Mertkan is a Professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at the Eastern Mediterranean University. Her research interests are varied and include meta–research, research integrity, and research evaluation policies as well as leadership conceptualizations and school leadership;

Sedat Gümüş is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education Policy and Leadership at the Education University of Hong Kong. His current research focuses on the relationship between school leadership and various teacher and student outcomes as well as the contextualization of leadership models and practices.

References

Adams

Thien

Chuin

ECY

, et al. (2023) The elusive Malayan tiget ‘captured’: A systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Malaysia. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 51(3): 673–692.

Aguinis

Pierce

Bosco

, et al. (2011) Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods 14(2): 306–331.

Ahmed

(2023a) Systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Muslim societies. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 51(1): 52–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231193251.

Ahmed

(2023b) A systematic review of ethical leadership studies in educational research from 1990 to 2022. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0).

Ahmed

(2023c) A systematic review of authentic leadership literature in educational research from 1997 to 2021. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221120467.

Aravena

(2022) Principal succession in schools: a literature review (2003–2019). Educational Management Administration and Leadership 50(3): 354–370.

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19–32.

Aromataris

Fernandez

Godfrey

, et al. (2015) Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 13(3): 132–140.

Attari

Outum

(2019) Research on educational administration published in Arabic language educational journals: A systematic review and analysis. International Studies in Educational Administration 47(1): 61–73.

10.

Attari

ATMA

Essa

(2023) Arab scholarship in educational administration, management and leadership: An overview. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 51(4): 849–867.

11.

Balcı

Apaydın

(2009) The state of the educational administration research in Turkey: The case of the educational administration in theory and practice journal. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 59(59): 325–344.

12.

Bellibaş

MŞ

Gümüş

(2019) A systematic review of educational leadership and management research in Turkey: Content analysis of topics, conceptual models, and methods. Journal of Educational Administration 57(6): 731–747.

13.

Bennett

Woods

Wise

, et al. (2007) Understandings of middle leadership in secondary schools: A review of empirical research. School Leadership and Management 27(5): 453–470.

14.

Berkovich

Eyal

(2017) Methodological review of studies on educational leaders and emotions (1992–2012): Insights into the meaning of an emerging research field in educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration 55(5): 469–491.

15.

Berkovich

Grinshtain

(2021) A review of rigor and ethics in qualitative educational administration, management, and leadership research articles published in 1999–2018. Leadership and Policy in Schools 22(3): 549–564.

16.

Boyce

Bowers

(2018) Toward and evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration 56(2): 161–182.

17.

Breault

(2010) Partnerships for preparing leaders: What can we learn from PDS research? International Journal of Leadership in Education 13(4): 437–454.

18.

Briner

Campbell

(1964) The science of administration. Review of Educational Research 34(4): 485–492.

19.

Bush

Glover

(2016) School leadership and management in South Africa: Findings from a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Management 30(2): 211–231.

20.

Bush

Hamid

, et al. (2018) School leadership theories and the Malaysia education blueprint: Findings from a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Management 32(7): 1245–1265.

21.

Byrd

Eddy

(2009) Statistical applications in two leading educational administration journals. Journal of Educational Administration 47(4): 508–520.

22.

Byrd

(2007) A call for statistical reform in EAQ. Educational Administration Quarterly 43(3): 381–391.

23.

Campbell

(1979) A critique of the educational administration quarterly. Educational Administration Quarterly 15(3): 1–19.

24.

Campbell

Faber

(1961) Administrative behavior: Theory and research. Review of Educational Research 31(4): 353–367.

25.

Carvalho

Cabral

Verdasca

, et al. (2021) Strategy and strategic leadership in education: A scoping review. Frontiners in Education 6: 706608.

26.

Castillo

Hallinger

(2018) Systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Latin America, 1991-2017. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46, 207–225.

27.

Chin

JM-C

(2007) Meta-analysis of transformational school leadership effects on school outcomes in Taiwan and the USA. Asia Pacific Education Review 8(2): 166–177.

28.

Çogaltay

Karadag

(2016) The effect of educational leadership on organizational variables: A meta-analysis study in the sample of Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 16(2): 603–646.

29.

Cook

Possingham

Fuller

(2013) Contribution of systematic reviews to management decisions. Conservation Biology 27(5): 902–915.

30.

Daniëls

Hondeghem

Dochy

(2019) A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review 27: 110–125.

31.

Davies

(2000) The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education 26(3/4): 365–378.

32.

Decombe

(2018) Systematic reviews in political science: What can the approach contribute to political research? Political Studies Review 16(2): 148–157.

33.

Dimmock

Tan

(2013) Educational leadership in Singapore: Tight coupling, sustainability, scalability, and succession. Journal of Educational Administration 51(3): 320–340.

34.

Donthu

Kumar

Mukherjee

, et al. (2021) How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 133: 285–296.

35.

Eagly

Karau

Johnson

(1992) Gender and leadership style among school principals: A meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly 28(1): 76–102.

36.

Edwards

Kaimal

(2016) Using meta-synthesis to support application of qualitative methods findings in practice: A discussion of meta-ethnography, narrative synthesis, and critical interpretive synthesis. The Arts in Psychoterapy 51: 30–35.

37.

Egger

Smith

Phillips

(1997) Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures. BMJ 315(7121): 1533–1537.

38.

Erickson

(1967) The school administration. Review of Educational Research 37: 417–432.

39.

Faulkner

Fagan

Lee

(2022) Umbrella reviews (systematic review of reviews). International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 15(1): 73–90.

40.

Feldhoff

Radisch

Bischof

(2016) Designs and methods in school improvement research: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Administration 54(2): 209–240.

41.

Flessa

Bramwell

Fernandez

, et al. (2018) School leadership in Latin America 2000-2016. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 46(2): 182–206.

42.

Flessa

Bramwell

Mindreau

(2021) Educational administration research in comparative eduation, 1995-2018. Comparative Education Review 65(3): 419–444.

43.

Gaol

NTL

(2023) School leadership in Indonesia: A systematic literature review. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 51(4): 831–848.

44.

Garcia-Huidobro

Nannemann

Bacon

, et al. (2017) Evolution in educational change: A literature review of the historical core of the. Journal of Educational Change . Journal of Educational Change 18(3): 263–293.

45.

Glass

(1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 5(10): 3–8.

46.

Glass

(1977) Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education 5(1): 351–379.

47.

Gough

(2007) Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education 22(2): 213–228.

48.

Gough

(2013) Meta-narrative and realist reviews: Guidance, rules, publication standards and quality appraisal. BMC Medicine 11(1): 22.

49.

Gough

Oliver

Thomas

(2012) An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Los Angeles: Sage.

50.

Gümüş

Arar

Oplatka

(2021) Review of international research on school leadership for social justice, equity and diversity. Journal of Educational Administration and History 53(1): 81–99.

51.

Gümüş

Bellibaş

Esen

, et al. (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1): 25–48.

52.

Gümüş

Bellibaş

MŞ

Gümüş

, et al. (2020) Science mapping research on educational leadership and management in Turkey: A bibliometric review of international publications. School Leadership & Management 40(1): 23–44.

53.

Gümüş

Hallinger

Cansoy

, et al. (2021) Instructional leadership in a centralized and competitive educational system: A qualitative meta-synthesis of research from Turkey. Journal of Educational Administration 59(6): 702–720.

54.

Gutiérrez-Salcedo

Martínez

Moral-Munoz

, et al. (2018) Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields. Applied Intelligence 48: 1275–1287.

55.

Haas

Wilson

Cobb

, et al. (2007) Assessing influence on the field: An analysis of citations to educational administration Quarterly. Educational Administration Quarterly 43(4): 494–512.

56.

Haller

(1979) Questionnaire and the dissertation in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly 15(1): 47–66.

57.

Hallinger

(2023) An Empirical Reflection on Educational Administration Quarterly's Distinctive Contributions to the Field. Educational Administration Quarterly 59(5): 884–913.

58.

Hallinger

(2011) A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the principal instructional management rating scale: A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership. Edcuational Administration Quarterly 47(2): 271–306.

59.

Hallinger

(2013) A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management. Journal of Educational Administration 51(2): 126–149.

60.

Hallinger

(2014) Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership: An empirical assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly 50(4): 539–576.

61.

Hallinger

(2018) Surfacing a hidden literature: A systematic review. Africa. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 46(3): 362–384.

62.

Hallinger

(2019a) Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management in Africa, 1960-2018. School Leadership and Management 39(5): 537–560.

63.

Hallinger

(2019b) A systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in South Africa: Mapping knowledge production in a developing society. International Journal of Leadership in Education 22(3): 316–334.

64.

Hallinger

(2020) Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management from the emerging regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America, 1965-2018. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 48(2): 209–230.

65.

Hallinger

Adams

Harris

, et al (2018) Review of conceptual models and methodologies in research on principal instructional leadership in Malaysia: A case of knowledge construction in a developing society. Journal of educational administration 56(1): 104–126.

66.

Hallinger

Bryant

(2013a) Review of research publications on educational leadership and management in Asia: A comparative analysis of three regions. Oxford Review of Education 39(3): 307–328.

67.

Hallinger

Bryant

(2013b) Mapping the terrain of educational leadership and management in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration 51(5): 618–637.

68.

Hallinger

Bryant

(2013c) Accelerating knowledge production on educational leadership and management in East Asia: A strategic analysis. School Leadership and Management 33(3): 202–223.

69.

Hallinger

Bryant

(2016) Exploring features of highly productive research contexts in Asia: A comparison of knowledge production in educational leadership in Israel and Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 36(1): 165–184.

70.

Hallinger

Chen

(2015) Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia: A comparative analysis of research topics and methods, 1995-2012. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 43(1): 5–27.

71.

Hallinger

Gümüş

Bellibaş

MŞ

(2020) Are principals instructional leaders yet?’ A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940-2018. Scientometrics 122(3): 1629–1650.

72.

Hallinger

Hammad

(2019) Knowledge production on educational leadership and management in Arab societies: A systematic review of research. Educational Management Administration and Leadersihp 47(1): 20–36.

73.

Hallinger

Heck

(1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32(1): 5–44.

74.

Hallinger

Heck

(1998) Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9(2): 157–191.

75.

Hallinger

Kovačević

(2019) A bibliometric review of research on educational administration: Science mapping the literature, 1960-2018. Review of Educational Research 89(3): 335–496.

76.

Hallinger

Kovačević

(2021) Science mapping the knowledge base in educational leadership and management: A longitudinal bibliometric analysis, 1960-2018. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 49(1): 5–30.

77.

Hallinger

Kovačević

(2022) Mapping the intellectual lineage of educational management, administration and leadership, 1972–2020. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(2): 192–216.

78.

Hallinger

Lee

THT

Szeto

(2013) Review of research on educational leadership and management in Hong Kong, 1995-2012: Topographical analysis of an emergent knowledge base. Leadership and Policy in Schools 12(3): 256–281.

79.

Hallinger

Walker

Trung

(2015) Making sense of images of fact and fiction: A critical review of the knowledge base for school leadership in Vietnam. Journal of Educational Administration 53(4): 445–466.

80.

Hallinger

Wang

Chen

(2013) Assessing the measurement properties of the principal instructional management rating scale: A meta-analysis of reliability studies. Educational Administraion Quarterly 49(2): 272–309.

81.

Hammad

Alazmi

(2022) Research on school principals in the Gulf states: A systematic review of topics and conceptual models. Management in Education 36(3): 105–114.

82.

Hammad

Hallinger

(2017) A systematic review of conceptual models and methods used in research on educational leadership and management in Arab societies. Scholl Leadership and Management 37(5): 434–456.

83.

Hammad

Samier

Mohammed

(2022) Mapping the field of educational leadership and management in the Arabian Gulf region: A systematic review of Arabic research literature. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 50(1): 6–25.

84.

Hansford

Ehrich

(2006) The principalship: How significant is mentoring? Journal of Educational Admiinistration 44(1): 36–52.

85.

Harris

Jones

Ismail

, et al. (2019) Middle leaders and middle leadership in schools: Exploring the knowledge base (2003-2017). School Leadership and Management 39(3-4): 255–277.

86.

Higginbottom

GMA

Morgan

Alexandre

, et al. (2015) Immigrant women’s experiences of maternity-care services in Canada: A sysrematic review using a narrative synthesis. Systematic Reviews 4(1): 13.

87.

Hobson

Sharp

(2005) Head to head: A systematic review of the research evidence on mentoring new head teachers. School Leadership and Management 25(1): 25–42.

88.

Hochbein

Mahone

Vanderbeck

(2021) A systematic review of principal time use research. Journal of Educational Administration 59(2): 215–232.

89.

Hosseingholizadeh

Sharif

Kerman

(2021) A systematic review of conceptual models and methodologies in research on school principals in Iran. Journal of Educational Administration 59(5): 564–581.

90.

Johnson

(2012) A systematic review of neighborhood and institutional relationships related to education. Education and Urban Society 44(4): 477–511.

91.

Kahn

Bullis

(2021) A look inside the “black box”: An integrative review of the cognitive decision-making processes used by school principals. Leadership and Policy in Schools 22(3): 565–584.

92.

Karadağ

(2020) The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement: A cross-cultural meta-analysis research on studies between 2008-2018. Asia Pacific Education Review 21(1): 49–64.

93.

Karadağ

Bektaş

Çoğaltay

, et al. (2015) The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement: A meta-analysis study. Asia Pacific Education Review 16(1): 79–93.

94.

Kaya

Demir

(2022) Analysis of the relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy: A cultural comparison. International Journal of Leadership in Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2022.2128431.

95.

Kelley

(2012) Statistical models for meta-analysis: A brief tutorial. World Journal of Methodology 2(4): 27–32.

96.

Khalifa

Gooden

Davis

(2016) Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of educational research 86(4): 1272–1311.

97.

Kirsten

(2020) A systematic research review of teachers’ professional development as a policy instrument. Educational Research Review 31: 100366.

98.

Kılınç

A Ç

Gümüş

(2021) What do we know about novice school principals? A systematic review of existing international literature. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 49(1): 54–75.

99.

Kovačević

Hallinger

(2019) Leading school change and improvement: A bibliometric analysis of the knowledge base (1960–2017). Journal of Educational Administration 57(6): 635–657.

100.

Kovačević

Hallinger

(2020) Finding Europe’s niche: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management in Europe, 1960-2018. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 31(3): 405–425.

101.

Kuzhabekova

(2023) A postcolonial feminist exploration of the scholarship on women and educational leadership with a bibliometric approach. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 51(3): 616–636.

102.

Lee

Paul

Lencer

, et al. (2022) Declining quality of systematic reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An updated systematic review. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation 4(2): e789–e795.

103.

Lee

Mao

(2023) Recruitment and selection of principals: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 51(1): 6–29.

104.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School leadership and management 28: 27–42.

105.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2005) A review of transformational school leadership research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools 4(3): 177–199.

106.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2006) Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 201–227.

107.

Leithwood

Montgomery

(1982) The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research 52(3): 309–339.

108.

Leithwood

Sun

(2012) The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: Meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(3): 387–423.

109.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

(2010) Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 5(1): 69.

110.

(2022) A review of empirical research on transformational school leadership in China (2010–2019). ECNU Review of Education 5(1): 156–184.

111.

Liebowitz

Porter

(2019) The effect of principal behaviors on student, teacher, and school outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 89(5): 785–827.

112.

Lipham

(1964) Organizational character of education: Administrative behavior. Review of Educational Research 34(4): 435–454.

113.

Liu

(2020) Understanding turnaround leadership research: Continuity and change (2009-2016). Educational Management Administration and Leadership 48(1): 6–24.

114.

Lochmiller

Cunningham

KMW

(2019) Leading learning in content areas: A systematic review of leadership practices used in mathematics and science instruction. International Journal of Educational Management 33(6): 1219–1234.

115.

Maheshwari

(2023) A review of literature on women’s leadership in higher education in developed countries and in Vietnam: Barriers and enablers. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 51(5): 1067–1086.

116.

Mays

Pope

Popay

(2005) Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research &Policy 10(1): 6–20.

117.

Mbuagbaw

Lawson

Puljak

, et al. (2020) A tutorial on methodological studies: The what, when, how and why. BMC Medical Research Methodology 20(1): 226.

118.

Mertkan

Arsan

Inal Cavlan

, et al. (2017) Diversity and equality in academic publishing: The case of educational leadership. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 47(1): 46–61.

119.

Mifsud

(2024) A systematic review of school distributed leadership: Exploring research purposes, concepts and approaches in the field between 2010 and 2022. Journal of Educational Administration and History 56(2), 154–179.

120.

Moed

(2006) Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

121.

Moher

Shamseer

Clarke

, et al. and PRISMA-P Group (2015) Prefferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 4(1).

122.

Montecinos

Galdames

Flessa

, et al. (2022) Pathways to the school principalship: An intrnational scoping review. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 50(2): 285–306.

123.

Murphy

Vriesenga

Storey

(2007) Educational administration quarterly, 1979-2003: An analysis of types of work, methods of investigation, and influences. Educational Administration Quarterly 43(5): 612–628.

124.

Newman

Gough

(2020) Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In: Zawacki-Richter

Kerres

Bedenlier

Bond

Buntins

(eds) Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 3–22.

125.

FSD

Nguyen

Wong

KSB

, et al. (2015) Instructional leadership practices in Singapore. School Leadership and Management 35(4): 388–407.

126.

Nguyen

Harris

(2020) A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003-2017): Evidence, patterns and implications. Journal of Educational Administration 58(1): 60–80.

127.

Okiri

Hercz

(2023) The tenets of distributed pedagogical leadership in educational contexts—A systematic literature review on perception and practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231154444.

128.

Oplatka

(2009) The field of educational administration: A historical overview of scholarly attempts to recognize epistemological identities, meanings and boundaries from the 1960s onwards. Journal of Educational Administration 47(1): 8–35.

129.

Oplatka

(2010) The Legacy of Educational Administration: A Historical Analysis of an Academic Field. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

130.

Oplatka

(2012) Fifty years of publication: Pondering the legacies of the journal of educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration 50(1): 34–55.

131.

Oplatka

(2020) The practical legacy of the educational administration field: probing into authors’ implications for policy-makers, leaders and trainers. International Journal of Leadershion in Education 23(3): 239–258.

132.

Oplatka

Arar

(2017) The research on educational leadership and management in the Arab world since the 1990s: A systematic review. Review of Education 5(3): 267–307.

133.

Osareh

(1996) Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: A review of literature. Libri 46: 149–158.

134.

Özdemir

Gümüş

Kılınç

A Ç

, et al. (2024) A systematic review of research on the relationship between school leadership and student achievement: An updated framework and future direction. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 52(5): 1020–1046.

135.

Pan

Nyeu

Chen

(2015) Principal instructional leadership in Taiwan: Lessons from two decades of research. Journal of Educational Administration 53(4): 492–511.

136.

Papatheodorou

(2019) Umbrella reviews: What they are and why we need them. European Journal of Epidemiology 34(6): 543–546.

137.

Paré

Marie-Claude

Jaana

, et al. (2015) Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management 52(2): 183–199.

138.

Peterson

Pearce

Ferguson

, et al. (2017) Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners 29(1): 12–16.

139.

Petticrew

Roberts

(2008) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.

140.

Pham

Rajić

Greig

, et al. (2014) A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods 5(4): 371–385.

141.

Popay

Roberts

Sowden

, et al. (2006) Guidance of the Conduct Of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Lancaster: Lancaster University.

142.

Rangel

(2018) A review of the literature on principal turnover. Review of Educational Research 88(1): 87–124.

143.

Riaz

Khan

Riaz

, et al. (2016) Disorganized systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Time to systematize the conduct and publication of these study overviews? The American Journal of Medicine 129(3): 339.e11–339.e18.

144.

Robinson

VMJ

Lloyd

Rowe

(2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635–674.

145.

Rodgers

Sowden

Petticrew

, et al. (2009) Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: Effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function. Evaluation 15(1): 47–71.

146.

Sisman

(2016) Factors related to instructional leadership perception and effect of instructional leadership on organizational variables: A meta-analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 16(5): 1761–1787.

147.

Snilstveit

Oliver

Vojtkova

(2012) Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesids of evidence for international development policy and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness 4(3): 409–429.

148.

Subhaktiyasa

Agung

AAG

Jampel

, et al. (2023) Spritual leadership in educational organization: A systematic literature review. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development 11(5): e722.

149.

Sugrue

(2005) Putting ‘real life’ into school leadership: Connecting leadership, identities and life history. In: Sugrue

(eds) Passionate Principalship: Learning from the Life Histories of School Leaders. London: Routledge Falmer, 4–21.

150.

Sun

Leithwood

(2012) Transformational school leadership effects on student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools 11(4): 418–451.

151.

Sun

Zhang

Forsyth

(2023) The effects of teacher trust on student learning and the malleability of teacher trust to school leadership: A 35-year meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly 59(4): 744–810.

152.

Szeto

Lee

TTH

Hallinger

(2015) A systematic review of research on educational leadership in Hong Kong, 1995-2014. Journal of Educational Administration 53(4): 534–553.

153.

Tamadoni

Hosseingholizadeh

Bellibaş

MŞ

(2024) A systematic review of key contextual challenges facing school principals: Research-informed coping solutions. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 52(1): 116–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211061439.

154.

Tan

(2024) Influence of cultural values on Singapore school leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 52(2): 6–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/174114322110734.

155.

Tan

Gao

Shi

(2024) Second-order meta-analysis synthesizing the evidence on associations between school leadership and different school outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 52(2): 280–303.

156.

Thompson

McNamara

Hoyle

(1997) Job satisfaction in educational organizations: a synthesis of research findings. Educational Administration Quarterly 33(1): 7–37.

157.

Thorne

Jensen

Kearney

, et al. (2004) Qualitative metasynthesis: Reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research 14(10): 1342–1365.

158.

Tian

Huber

(2021) Mapping the international knowledge base of educational leadership, administration and management: A topographical perspective. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 51(1): 4–23.

159.

Tian

Risku

Collin

(2016) A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002-2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1): 146–164.

160.

Tintoré

Cunha

Cabral

, et al. (2003) A scoping review of problems and challenges faced by school leaders. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 50(4): 536–573.

161.

Torres-Arcadia

Nava-Lara

Rodríguez-Uribe

, et al. (2022) What we know about successful principals in Mexico. Journal of Educational Administration 60(1): 86–100.

162.

Tortosa Martínez

Pérez-Fuentes

Jurado

MMM

(2022) Addressing leadership effectiveness for student academic engagement: A systematic review. School Leadership & Management 42(4): 366–380.

163.

Trujillo

(2013) The reincarnation of the effective schools research: Rethinking the literature on district effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration 51(4): 426–452.

164.

Walker

Qian

(2012) Principal leadership in China: An initial review. Chool Effectiveness and School Imprivement 23(4): 369–399.

165.

Walker

Qian

(2015) Review of research on school principal leadership in mainland China, 1998-2013: Continuity and change. Journal of Educational Administration 53(4): 467–491.

166.

Walsh

(2005) Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50(2): 204–211.

167.

Wang

(2020) A quest for teacher leadership in the twenty-first century – Emerging themes for future research. International Journal of Educational Management 34(2): 354–372.

168.

Wang

Bowers

Fikis

(2017) Automated text data mining analysis of five decades of educational leadership research literature: Probabilistic topic modeling of EAQ articles from 1965 to 2014. Educational Administration Quarterly 53(2): 289–323.

169.

White

McCain

(1998) Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49(4): 327–355.

170.

Whittemore

Knafl

(2005) The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing 52(5): 546–553.

171.

Witziers

Bosker

Krüger

(2003) Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(3): 398–425.

172.

Shen

(2022) The association between principal leadership and student achievement: A multivariate meta-meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 35: 100423.

173.

Xiao

Watson

(2019) Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research 39(1): 93–112.

174.

York-Barr

Duke

(2004) What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research 74(3): 255–316.

175.

Zimmer

(2006) Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing 53(3): 311–318.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.02 MB

0.00 MB