A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management
| Published date | 15 March 2013 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304670 |
| Pages | 126-149 |
| Date | 15 March 2013 |
| Author | Philip Hallinger |
| Subject Matter | Education |
A conceptual framework for
systematic reviews of research
in educational leadership
and management
Philip Hallinger
Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change,
Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, SAR, China
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for scholars car rying out reviews of
research that meet international standards for publication.
Design/methodology/approach – This is primarily a conceptual paper focusing on the
methodology of conducting systematic reviews of research. However, the paper draws on a database
of reviews of research previously conducted in educational leadership and management. In a separate
effort, the author identified 40 reviews of research that had been published in educational leadership
conducted over the past five decades. The paper draws upon narrative examples from the empirical
review as a meansof clarifying and elaboratingon the elements of the conceptual framework.The paper
also refers to specificfindings from the earlier paper in order to illustrate broader trendswith respect to
how the various elements of the framework have been employed in exemplary reviews.
Findings – As scholars working across a broad range of scientific fields suggest, high quality reviews
of research represent a potentially powerful means of reducing the gap between research and
practice. Yet, the quality of research reviews conducted in educational leadership and management
remain highly variable in methodological rigor. This paper provides a conceptual framework and
language that scholars might use to guide the conduct and evaluation of future research reviews in
educational leadership and management.
Research limitations/implications – The contribution of this paper lies first in highlighting the
need for scholars to employ systematic methods when conducting research reviews in educational
leadership and management. Beyond this broad purpose, the paper provides a framework for decision-
making at different points in the review process, and a set of criteria or standards by which authors,
readers and reviewers can judge the quality of a research review. It is hoped that this conceptual
framework can provide useful methodological guidance that will enhance longstanding efforts in our
field to advance knowledge in a more systematic and coherent fashion.
Originality/value – This originality of this paper lies in its adaptation and application of recent
methodological advances in conducting reviews of research across the natural and social sciences to
the field of educational leadership and management. A search of core journals in educational
leadership and management found not a single paper that discussed methods of conducting reviews of
research. The paper offers a clear framework that will allow future scholars in educational leadership
and management to improve the quality of their research reviews.
Keywords Educational administration, Educational research, Methods, Methodology,
Research methodology, Literature, Education, Research, Leadership
Paper type Conceptual paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Received 29 October 2012
Revised 10 November 2012
Accepted 16 November 2012
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 51 No. 2, 2013
pp. 126-149
rEmeraldGroup Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578231311304670
The author wishes to acknowledge the useful comments on this paper offered by Edwin M.
Bridges, Kenneth Leithwood, Ronald H. Heck, and Joseph Murphy. The author wishes to
acknowledge the funding support of the Research Grant Council (RGC) of Hong Kong for its
support through the General Research Fund (GRF ILEA 841512).
126
JEA
51,2
Reviews of research are the underappreciated workhorses of academic publication.
They seldom attract research funding, and operate largely in the background
of the research enterprise. Yet, reviews of research play a critical role in the
advancement of knowledge by highlighting milestones of progress along particular
lines of inquiry. They point the way toward productive conceptualizations, topics
and methodologies for subsequent research. Well-crafted reviews identify blind
spots, blank spots and intellectual “dry wells” in the landscape of theory and
empirical research (e.g. see Bridges, 1982; Erickson, 1979; Hallinger and Heck, 1996).
In sum, research reviews enhance the quality of theoretical and empirical efforts of
scholars to contribute to knowledge production (DeGeest and Schmidt, 2010;
Donmoyer et al., 1995; Eidel and Kitchel, 1968; Gough, 2007; Murphy et al., 2007;
Shemilt et al., 2010).
The spotlight on research reviews has intensified in recent years as a consequence
of several trends in research and practice. Perhaps most visibly, research reviews
represent a key resource for evidence-based decision making by policymakers and
leaders (DeGeest and Schmidt, 2010; Gough, 2007; Leithwoo d and Jantzi, 2005a). In a
related sense, “systematic reviews [y] help scientists to direct their research and
clinicians to keep updated” (Montori et al., 2003, p. 1). Finally, citation analyses of
academic publications find that research reviews rank among the most highly cited
articles published in academic journals (Bero et al., 1998; Hallinger, 2012; Montori et al.,
2003). Hattie’s meta-analytic review of factors that impact learning is a case in point;
it has generated more than 1,000 citations in under three years[1]. Research reviews
tend to accumulate especially high citation rates due to their role in laying the
groundwork for conceptual analyses and empirical studies (Gough, 2007; Hallinger,
2012; Murphy et al., 2007)[2].
Given these trends, it is somewhat surprising that, until recently, scholars have
not paid sustained attention to the “methods” employed in conducting reviews of
research (Cooper and Hedges, 2009; EPPI, 2012; Gough, 2007; Lipsey and Wilson, 2001).
This observation applies in the field of educational leadership and management.
For example, the author’s review of relevant journals for the current report was
unable to identify even one article concerned with the methodology of conducting
reviews of research.
Perhaps more significantly, a recent “review of reviews of research” in our field
characterized the 40 published reviews as highly variable in methodological rigor
(Hallinger, 2012). A majority of these reviews published in our leading journals failed
to meet the “methodological standards” (Gough, 2007) increasingly expected of
systematic reviews of research (Hallinger, 2012). It is also interesting to note that this
conclusion of variable methodological quality also applied to the 20 reviews published
during the most recent decade. Fortunately, however, the same study identified a
subset of exemplary reviews that met most or all recommended methodological
standards. Thus, we suggest that although there is room for improvement in the
approaches used to review research in educational leadership and management, bo th
methodological resources and exemplary reviews of research in our own field are
available to guide future efforts.
The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framewo rk for carrying out
systematic reviews of research that can be applied in educational leadership an d
management. The conceptual framework incorporates recent advice from a growing
literature on reviewing research in the natural, social and education sciences
(e.g. Barnett-Page and Thomas, 2009; Cooper and Hedges, 2009; EPPI, 2012 ; Gough,
127
Systematic
reviews of
research
To continue reading
Request your trial