Exploring features of highly productive research contexts in Asia: a comparison of knowledge production in educational leadership in Israel and Hong Kong

Hallinger, Philip; Bryant, Darren Anthony

doi:10.1080/02188791.2014.934780

Cited by 13 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(154 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a related sense, “systematic reviews […] 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].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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, 2007; Hallinger, 2012; Hunter and Schmidt, 2004; Jackson, 1980; Light and Pillemer, 1984; Lipsey and Wilson, 2001; Sandelowski and Barroso, 2007; Weed, 2005) as well as lessons drawn from our earlier study of reviews of research in educational leadership and management (Hallinger, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then we present the conceptual framework for conducting systematic reviews of research. This section draws examples from exemplary research reviews in educational leadership and management (Hallinger, 2012) in order to illustrate elements of the conceptual framework. The paper concludes with a critical assessment of the state‐of‐the‐art in reviewing research in educational leadership and management and recommendations for future directions in this domain.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management

Hallinger

2013

Journal of Educational Administration

Self Cite

238

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present a framework for scholars carrying out reviews of research that meet international standards for publication.Design/methodology/approachThis 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 means of clarifying and elaborating on the elements of the conceptual framework. The paper also refers to specific findings from the earlier paper in order to illustrate broader trends with respect to how the various elements of the framework have been employed in exemplary reviews.FindingsAs 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/implicationsThe 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/valueThis 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.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%