Problems with Research on Educational Leadership: Issues to Be Addressed

Murphy, Joseph; Hallinger, Philip; Mitman, Alexis L.

doi:10.2307/1164128

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Oplatka (2009) noted an increase in empirical research as well as increasing interest in "practice" during this decade. At the same time, however, scholars reviewing research from the 1970s decried the lack of programmatic research, persistence of a shotgun approach to topical selection, and decoupling of most EA research from the central purpose of schooling, that is, the learning of students (Bossert et al, 1982;Bridges 1982;Erickson, 1979;Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982;Murphy, Hallinger, & Mitman, 1983).…”

Section: Conceptual Background and Framework The Evolution Of Educatimentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bibliometric Review of Research on Educational Administration: Science Mapping the Literature, 1960 to 2018

Hallinger

Kovačević

2019

Review of Educational Research

Self Cite

286

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review used “science mapping” as a means of understanding the evolution of research in educational administration (EA). The review sought to document the size, growth trajectory, and geographic distribution of EA research, identify high impact scholars and documents, and illuminate the “intellectual structure” of the field. Although science mapping has been applied widely in science, medicine, and social sciences, it is still new in the field of education. The authors identified 22,361 peer-reviewed articles published in 22 Scopus-indexed EA journals between 1960 and 2018. The authors used VOSviewer, Excel, and Tableau software to analyze the data set. The review found that the EA knowledge base has grown dramatically since 1960 with an accelerating rate growth and increasing gender and geographic diversity during the past two decades. Using co-citation analysis, the review identified canonical documents, defined as highly influential documents whose impact has been sustained for a period of several decades. The review also identified four key Schools of Thought that have emerged over time focusing on Leadership for Learning, Leadership and Cultural Change, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, and Leading Teachers. More broadly, our findings highlighted a paradigm shift from “school administration” to “school leadership” over the course of the six decades. Another significant finding identified “leadership for student learning and development” as the “cognitive anchor” of the intellectual structure of the EA knowledge base. The authors conclude that science mapping offers a new and useful means of unpacking the historical development of fields of study.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Background and Framework The Evolution Of Educatimentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bibliometric Review of Research on Educational Administration: Science Mapping the Literature, 1960 to 2018

Hallinger

Kovačević

2019

Review of Educational Research

Self Cite

286

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In developing the Standards, the Consortium also relied heavily on the research on principals and superintendents who were especially productive in leading high-performing organizations-again, with performance being established by reference to the three-part definition of effectiveness outlined above (quality, equity, and value-added). We employed "instructional leadership" frameworks developed by Murphy and Hallinger from their empirical studies and their reviews of existing research available at the time the Consortium began its work (for principals, see Beck & Murphy, 1992, 1993Hallinger & Murphy, 1985b;Louis & Murphy, 1994;Murphy 1990dMurphy , 1994cMurphy & Hallinger, 1992;Murphy, Hallinger, Weil, & Mitman, 1983a; for superintendents, see Hallinger & Murphy, 1982;Murphy, 1994aMurphy, , 1995bMurphy, Hallinger, Peterson, & Lotto, 1987;; and for critical analyses, see Murphy, 1988b;Murphy, Hallinger, Lotto, & Miller, 1987;Murphy, Hallinger, Weil, & Mitman, 1983b).…”

Section: What Do We Know About the Actions And Values Of The Women And Men Who Lead Effective Schools And Productive School Systems?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking the Foundations of ISLLC Standards and Addressing Concerns in the Academic Community

Murphy

2005

Educational Administration Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This report continues in the lineage of published reviews of research that have focused on mapping methodological progress in educational leadership and management. Reviews conducted in the 1960s (Erickson, 1967;Lipham, 1964), 1970s (Haller, 1979), 1980s (Bridges, 1982;Murphy, Hallinger, & Mitman, 1983;Rowan, Bossert, & Dwyer, 1983), and 1990s (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996bHeck & Hallinger, 1999) analyzed methodological trends and challenges in their respective eras. These reviews have played a critical role in raising standards in empirical research in educational leadership and management over the past five decades.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Three Decades of Doctoral Studies Using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale: A Lens on Methodological Progress in Educational Leadership

Hallinger

2010

Educational Administration Quarterly

Self Cite

227

318

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This report continues in the lineage of reviews of research in educational leadership and management by examining methodological approaches used by doctoral researchers in studying principal ins tructional leadership. Research Design: The article reviews the full set of 130 doctoral dissertations completed over the past three decades that used the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS). The report analyzes trends in the research foci, conceptual models, research designs, and statistical methods employed in these studies. Findings: The study finds that interest in instructional leadership among scholars and practitioners remained strong throughout the period of the review, the PIMRS has proven a reliable and valid data collection tool, and the use of research methodology has improved in several specific areas. Nonetheless, the results also suggest that the conceptual frameworks and methodologies used by these doctoral students Article at University of Wyoming Libraries on March 29, 2015 eaq.sagepub.com Downloaded from Educational Administration Quarterly 47 (2) of this report, we highlight trends in the conduct of empirical research rather than specific research findings. Moreover, because the review is centered on studies that employed the PIMRS, we provide an explication of its underlying conceptual framework and the scale's properties.

show abstract

Problems with Research on Educational Leadership: Issues to Be Addressed

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

A Bibliometric Review of Research on Educational Administration: Science Mapping the Literature, 1960 to 2018

A Bibliometric Review of Research on Educational Administration: Science Mapping the Literature, 1960 to 2018

Unpacking the Foundations of ISLLC Standards and Addressing Concerns in the Academic Community

A Review of Three Decades of Doctoral Studies Using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale: A Lens on Methodological Progress in Educational Leadership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About