Educational Management

Administration & Leadership

Science mapping the knowledge 1–22
ª The Author(s) 2019

base on educational leadership Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1741143218822772
and management from the journals.sagepub.com/home/ema

emerging regions of Asia, Africa

and Latin America, 1965–2018

Philip Hallinger

Abstract
This bibliometric review of research sought to document and compare trends in educational
leadership and management (EDLM) knowledge production from the emerging regions of Asia,
Africa and Latin America. Using a science mapping methodology, the review identified 1171 articles
published in nine “core” EDLM journals between 1965 and August 2018. This represented 22% of
the full corpus of articles published in these EDLM journals during this period of time. Despite
representing a relatively small portion of the overall corpus, these studies from emerging regions
grew to comprise 42.5% of the corpus published between 2015 and 2018. Despite this broad
pattern of growth, there was also significant geographical variation in the volume of articles
published in these journals both between and within the regions. The review also identified
“canonical scholars and documents” that have demonstrated lasting influence on this knowledge
base. Co-citation analyses also revealed several schools of thought within this literature. The
review concludes that the global literature in EDLM is undergoing a significant change in com-
position. The findings will inform scholarly efforts to develop a more diverse, representative, and
globally relevant knowledge base. Recommendations are offered for strengthening the quality and
scope of research from emerging regions of the world.

Keywords
Developing societies, leadership, management, knowledge production, science mapping, biblio-
metric review

Introduction
During the mid-1990s, scholars working outside mainstream centers of scholarship in educational
leadership and management (EDLM) began to question the tacit assumption of the universality of

Corresponding author:
Philip Hallinger, College of Management, Mahidol University, 69 Vipavadee Rangsit Rd, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Email: hallinger@gmail.com
2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

the EDLM knowledge base (Bajunid, 1996; Cheng and Wong, 1996; Hallinger and Leithwood,
1996). These critiques surfaced a need for research from more diverse settings to build a global
knowledge base in EDLM (Oplatka, 2004; Ribbins and Gunter, 2002; Walker and Dimmock,
2002). Over the ensuing 20 years, scholarship from “Emerging Regions” of Asia, Africa and Latin
America began to address this gap (e.g., Castillo and Hallinger, 2018; Hallinger, 2018c; Hallinger
and Bryant, 2013; Oplatka and Arar, 2017; Walker and Hallinger, 2015). However, these reviews
mostly relied on descriptive topographical analyses of the emerging-regions knowledge base in
EDLM. Thus, the field continues to lack a comprehensive, empirically supported picture of how
research publication from ER is reshaping the composition of the EDLM literature.
This comparative review of EDLM knowledge production across Asia, Africa, and Latin
America was guided by several research questions.

RQ1: What is the volume and distribution by time and geographic source of EDLM research
from emerging regions?
RQ2: What authors, institutions, and journal articles from emerging regions have had the
greatest influence on EDLM research over the past six decades?
RQ3: What is the intellectual structure of the EDLM knowledge base from emerging regions?

This review used quantitative tools of science mapping (Small, 1999) to review 1171 journal
articles from Asia, Africa, and Latin America published in nine Scopus-indexed, EDLM journals
between 1965 and August 2018. Meta-data associated with these articles were analyzed using
bibliometric methods (Zupic and Čater, 2015). The review seeks to offer insights into the evolving
global knowledge base in EDLM.

Conceptual background
In this paper, “knowledge base” refers to literature that underlies EDLM as an applied field of
study (Donmoyer, 1999; Murphy et al., 2007; Ogawa et al., 2000; Oplatka, 2010). Scholars have
evidenced an interest in understanding the nature and scope of the EDLM knowledge base as far
back as the 1960s (Eidell and Kitchel, 1968). Subsequent empirical analyses of the EDLM knowl-
edge base have focused on the types of papers published (e.g., conceptual, empirical, review), as
well as the prevalence of different topical foci, conceptual models, and research methods (e.g.,
Bridges, 1982; Gumus et al., 2018; Hallinger and Chen, 2015; Murphy et al., 2007; Oplatka, 2010;
Ribbins and Gunter, 2002).
This review approaches the knowledge base as a dynamic entity (Eidell and Kitchell, 1968;
Ogawa et al., 2000) that can be analyzed on at least four dimensions (see Figure 1). The first
dimension features “size” or the number of documents in the EDLM knowledge base. “Time”
refers to the growth trajectory of journal publication. “Space” refers to the geographic distribution
of documents (e.g., Hallinger, 2018c). The geographical distribution of documents offers insight
into how much we know about EDLM across different parts of the world (Flessa et al., 2017;
Hallinger, 2018a, 2018c; Mertkan et al., 2017; Oplatka and Arar, 2017). “Composition” refers to
the intellectual structure of the knowledge base (Small, 1999). Zupic and Čater (2015) defined
intellectual structure as “the examined scientific domain’s research traditions, their disciplinary
composition, influential research topics, and the pattern of their interrelationships” (p. 435).
Composition can be analyzed in terms of patterns of authorship, journal publications, research
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 3

Figure 1. Four-dimensional conceptual model of a knowledge base.

methods, and topics (see Bridges, 1982; Flessa et al., 2017; Gumus et al., 2018; Hallinger and
Bryant, 2013; Oplatka and Arar, 2017).

Method of review
The current review employed “science mapping,” a variant of bibliometric analysis, to analyze the
EDLM knowledge base on the four dimensions identified in Figure 1. Science mapping draws on
advances in text mining to provide more comprehensive analyses of the composition and structure
of the knowledge base than were possible in the past (see Nerur et al., 2008; Small, 1999; Van Eck
and Waltman, 2017; Zupic and Čater, 2015).

Search criteria
This review focused on articles published in nine core international EDLM journals is shown in
Table 1.1 Each has an espoused mission of publishing international EDLM research, employs blind
review procedures, publishes in English, and is indexed in the Scopus database (Elsevier). A
corollary review had established that these nine journals were among the top-10 most frequently
cited journals in EDLM research (Hallinger, 2018b). The 10th journal, National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, was deemed unsuitable because it seldom pub-
lishes articles focusing on EDLM outside of the USA.
Books, book chapters, and conference papers were excluded from the review. The rationale was
that their review processes are seldom comparable to double-blind peer review used by the nine
journals. Indeed, it is for this reason that the Scopus database provides less extensive coverage of
these kinds of sources.
Inclusion criteria used in identifying eligible articles within these journals were: (a) time period,
(b) topical focus, and (c) geographical location of the author(s). The review extends back to 1965,
the earliest date for which the Scopus index yielded articles for these journals. This timeframe
enabled full coverage of all articles published in the selected journals with the exception of the
4 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Table 1. Statistics on emerging-regions articles published in the nine EDLM journals.

Total Emerging-
Emerging- Regions
Years Regions Documents Scopus Citations per Journal Scopus
Rank Journal Published Documents % Corpus Citations Document Co-citations H-index

1 IJEM 1987–2018 401 36% 2738 6.8 589 40

2 JEA 1962–2018 236 24% 2830 12.0 1713 46
3 EMLA 1972–2018 189 14% 1553 8.2 921 31
4 SLM 1997–2018 112 13% 1190 10.6 870 60
5 IJLE 1998–2018 102 19% 611 6.0 285 29
6 SESI 1990–2018 65 10% 1065 16.4 616 45
7 EAQ 1965–2018 43 4% 1007 23.4 1653 60
8 LPS 2002–2018 16 5% 59 3.7 258 12
9 SO 1981–1996 7 1% 8 1.1 53 —
EAQ: Educational Administration Quarterly; EDLM: educational leadership and management; EMLA: Educational
Management and Leadership Administration; IJEM: International Journal of Educational Management; IJLE: International
Journal of Leadership in Education; JEA: Journal of Educational Administration; LPS: Leadership and Policy in Schools; SESI:
School Effectiveness and School Improvement; SLM: School Leadership and Management; SO: School Organization.

earliest publications in the Journal of Educational Administration (JEA; i.e., 1962–1964), the first
international research journal in the field. Thus, this review was able to illuminate patterns of
emerging-regions scholarship within the full evolution of the modern generation of EDLM
research.
The topical scope for the review included all studies of EDLM in K–12 and higher education
settings (Figure 2). The operational criterion for topical inclusion was inclusion in one of the
EDLM specialization journals. This decision to limit the review to journals specializing in
EDLM avoided the difficulty of determining the eligibility of studies based solely on keywords.
For example, a keyword search designed to identify “all EDLM research published in Scopus
journals” would have introduced a much higher level of ambiguity in decision-making around
the eligibility of individual studies. Because bibliometric reviews typically work with large
datasets, both efficiency and effectiveness of search processes must be considered to optimize
the results.
Geographic scope was defined in terms of three regions of the world: Latin America, Africa,
and Asia. Asia included societies extending from Turkey and Russia on the West to Japan and
Papua Guinea in the East. Africa included the main continent as well as the islands of Madagascar,
Mauritius, and Seychelles. Latin America extended from the Caribbean islands and Mexico in the
North to Chile in the South. Although each of these three regions is admittedly heterogeneous in
terms of religion, culture, and language, they represent widely accepted geographic regions of the
world. Moreover, for the purpose of this review, scholarship from these regions can be character-
ized as located outside of mainstream Anglo–American–European EDLM scholarship. Thus, they
all qualify as emerging regions.
The author acknowledges that numerous European societies could be also characterized as
“emerging” with respect to international publication of EDLM research. However, it would have
been difficult to come up with a defensible decision rule designed to determine inclusion or
exclusion. Therefore, the author decided to include publications from Europe within the Anglo–
American region and accept this as a limitation of the review.
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 5

Total arcles published in the 9

journals idenfied in the SCOPUS
Idenficaon

database search.
(n = 5,821)

Arcles excluded based on

Total arcles screened.
SCOPUS geographic filters.
(n =5,821)
(n = 4,175)
Screening

Arcles aer society-level exclusion

filter applied.
(n =1,646)

Arcle abstracts assessed for Arcles excluded based on

eligibility. geographic relevance.
Eligibility

(n = 1,646) (n = 511)

Eligible arcles aer screening and Arcles added following

supplementary search. supplementary search.
(n = 1,145) (n = 27)
Included

Studies included in topographical

and bibliometric syntheses.
(n = 1,171)

Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram detailing steps in the identification and screening of sources for the review of
EDLM research from emerging regions, 1965–2018.
EDLM: educational leadership and management; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses.

Identification of sources
The author followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
guidelines for conducting systematic reviews of research (Moher et al., 2009). Preferred Report-
ing Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses specifies the steps to be followed and
reported in the identification and extraction of information for use in bibliometric reviews (see
Figure 1). The initial search aimed to identify the full set of articles included in these Scopus
journals. This was necessary to develop benchmarks against which to compare emerging-regions
literature.
6 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Thus, the initial search was conducted using the Scopus search engine with parameters set as
follows:

 Inclusion: Dates, 1965 to 31 August 2018;

 Inclusion: Source Title: each of the nine journals noted above;
 Inclusion: Document Type: articles and research reviews;
 Exclusion: Author’s geographical affiliation outside of the emerging regions (see below);
 Exclusion: Document Type: book reviews, commentaries, books, chapters, conference
papers.

This search yielded a total of 5821 articles (see Figure 1).2 This comprised the full EDLM
knowledge base published in the nine journals between 1965 and August 2018. With respect to
inclusion/exclusion criteria, the review included articles authored by scholars located in the emer-
ging regions as well as articles about EDLM in the emerging regions authored by scholars located
outside of the emerging regions. This search strategy enabled the review to document accurately
the scope of knowledge about EDLM in the emerging regions as well as authorship patterns in the
emerging-regions literature.
This strategy did, however, necessitate adjustment to the normal process of filtering sources in
the database. For example, in the case of several authors (e.g., C. Dimmock, P. Hallinger, A.
Walker, or A. Harris), the author had to distinguish where they were located at the time of
authorship of a document. If the author was located in an emerging-regions society (e.g., Hong
Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia) at the time of authorship, then the article was included
regardless of its topic. If, however, the scholar was located outside of an emerging-regions society
(e.g., Australia, USA, UK) at the time of authorship, then the article was only included if it
explicitly addressed EDLM in an emerging-regions society.
Managing these dual criteria during the search required a three-step process. First, Scopus’s
geographic filters were applied to separate out emerging-regions studies from the initial database.
This entailed exclusion of articles where the author’s affiliation was listed as the USA, UK,
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or a European society. This reduced the database to 1646 articles.
However, this total still included 614 “undefined sources,” or articles for which location informa-
tion was lacking in the Scopus database.
Next the titles and abstracts of the 1646 documents were scanned to confirm their relevance
using the dual geographical criteria delineated above. This resulted in the exclusion of 501 doc-
uments, comprising duplicates and articles incorrectly included by Scopus (e.g., from the unde-
fined sources). This left a database of 1145 articles.
At this point, the author compared the 1145 articles with the results of a database developed
from a previous inspection of the journals’ websites. This revealed 26 articles that had been
incorrectly removed by Scopus geographic filters, leaving a review database consisting of 1171
journal articles.

Data extraction
Bibliographic data related to the 1171 journal articles were downloaded in a comma-separated
values (.csv) file. The stored data included author name, author affiliation, article title, keywords,
abstracts, and citation data. This intact data file was later edited using the Scopus thesaurus
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 7

Table 2. Rank order of 20 most highly cited EDLM journal authors from emerging regions based on nine
Scopus-indexed journals.

Scopus
Rank Author Institution Nation Articles Citations

1 Hallinger, P. Mahidol University/ Education Hong Kong-China 70 1501

University of Hong Konga
2 Walker, A. Nanyang Technological University/ Singapore/ 50 959
Chinese University of Hong Kong/ Hong Kong
Education University of Hong Kong
3 Oplatka, I. Tel Aviv University Israel 44 561
4 Cheng, Y.C. Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong-China 34 539
5 Dimmock, C. Chinese University of Hong Kong/ Hong Kong-Singapore/ 22 483
Nanyang Technological University/ United Kingdom
University Glasgow
6 Somech, A. University of Haifa Israel 19 478
7 Bogler, R. Open University Israel 7 306
8 Lee, M. Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong-China 13 197
9 Rosenblatt, Z. University of Haifa Israel 11 151
10 Schechter, C. Bar-Ilan University Israel 26 148
11 Nir, A.E. University of Jerusalem Israel 14 121
12 Qian, H. Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong-China 5 112
13 Kwan, P. Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong-China 9 110
14 Cheung, A.C.K. Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong-China 9 102
15 Eyal, O. Hebrew University Israel 11 92
18 Wong, P.M. Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong-China 7 88
19 Yuen, H. Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong-China 8 81
20 Arar, K. Tel Aviv University Israel 15 73
a
Also of Chulalongkorn Chinese University, Chiang Mai Chinese University, and Chinese University of Johannesburg.
EDLM: educational leadership and management; Scopus: Elsevier database.

function and then uploaded into visualization of similarities (VOS) VOSviewer software. A second
copy of the same .csv file was saved for supplementary analysis in Excel.

Data analysis
Bibliometric analysis incorporates three broad types of statistical analysis.
The first is descriptive statistics used to describe patterns of knowledge production (e.g., size,
change over time, number of documents by decade, geographic source, scholars, etc.).
The second is citation analysis used to calculate how many times each of the 1171 documents
(or authors or journals) contained in the review database has been cited by other documents (or
authors or journals) located in the Scopus index (i.e., Scopus citations). Citation analysis enables
researchers to identify prominent authors, publications, and sources within a domain of knowledge
(e.g., see Tables 1, 2, and 3).
The third approach is co-citation analysis, a variant of traditional citation analysis. Co-citation
is the frequency with which two units (e.g., documents, authors, journals) are cited together. Zupic
and Čater (2015) explain that
8 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Table 3. The 20 educational leadership and management journal articles from emerging regions with highest
Scopus citations.

Google
Paper Scopus Scholar
# Document Type Citationsa Citationsb

1 Hallinger and Heck (2010a) Collaborative leadership and school Empirical 137 586
improvement. SLM.
2 Nguni, Sleegers and Denessen (2006) Transformational and Empirical 132 654
transactional leadership effects. SESI.
3 Hallinger (2011b) Leadership for learning. JEA. Research 131 532
review
4 Watkins (2000) Learning and teaching. SLM. Conceptual 126 343
5 Bogler (2001) The influence of leadership style on teacher job Empirical 115 809
satisfaction. EAQ.
6 Hallinger and Leithwood (1996) Culture and educational Conceptual 110 341
administration. JEA.
7 Somech and Bogler (2002) Antecedents and consequences of Empirical 99 333
teacher organizational and professional commitment. EAQ.
8 Heck and Hallinger (2005) The study of educational leadership and Research 90 338
management. EMLA. review
9 Hallinger and Heck (2010b) Leadership for learning. EMLA. Empirical 84 301
10 Dimmock and Walker (2000) Developing comparative and Conceptual 83 221
international educational leadership and management. SLM.
11 Yu, Leithwood and Jantzi (2002) The effects of transformational Empirical 81 320
leadership on teachers’ commitment to change in Hong Kong. JEA.
12 Dimmock and Walker (1998) Comparative educational Conceptual 80 181
administration. EAQ.
13 Cheng and Wong (1996) School effectiveness in East Asia. JEA. Conceptual 75 195
14 Yuen, Law and Wong (2003) ICT implementation and school Empirical 74 252
leadership. JEA.
15 Bajunid (1996) Preliminary explorations of indigenous Conceptual 68 157
perspectives of educational management. JEA.
16 Hallinger (2011a) A review of three decades of doctoral studies Research 67 245
using the principal instructional management rating scale. EAQ. review
17 Hallinger and Heck (2011) Exploring the journey of school Empirical 67 165
improvement. SESI.
18 Cheng (2009) Hong Kong educational reforms in the last decade. Commentary 62 112
IJEM.
19 Bush and Oduro (2006) New principals in Africa. JEA. Conceptual 60 212
20 Bogler and Somech (2005) Organizational citizenship behavior in Empirical 55 185
school. JEA.
This list was based on citation analysis of 1171 emerging-regions articles.
a
Scopus citations are based on citations by other sources contained in the Scopus index of documents as of 20 August 2018.
b
Google Scholar citations are based on citations by other sources contained in the Google Scholar index of documents as of
20 August 2018.
EAQ: Educational Administration Quarterly; EDLM: educational leadership and management; EMLA: Educational
Management and Leadership Administration; IJEM: International Journal of Educational Management; JEA: Journal of
Educational Administration; Scopus: Elsevier database; SESI: School Effectiveness and School Improvement; SLM: School
Leadership and Management.
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 9

Figure 3. Example of co-citation of documents in science-mapping EDLM.

EDLM, educational leadership and management.

Co-citation analysis uses co-citation counts to construct measures of similarity between documents,
authors, or journals . . . A fundamental assumption of co-citation analysis is that the more two items are
cited together, the more likely it is that their content is related. (McCain, 1990: 431)

For example, in Figure 3 the Bajunid (1996) and Hallinger (1995) articles are considered to be
co-cited because both appear together in the reference lists of other documents located in the
review database. Moreover, each of them would accrue three co-citations. These articles are
considered intellectually related by virtue of their co-citation by other scholars (McCain, 1990;
White and McCain, 1998).
Note that in Figure 3 each of the “citing documents” (e.g., Oplatka, 2004) is also “linked” to the
documents that it cites. “Links” represent an additional kind of relationship between documents (or
authors or journals) that coexist within the conceptual space of a literature. Although the “citing
documents” must be in the author’s database, that is not necessarily the case for a co-cited
document. For example, the Hallinger (1995) article in Figure 3 was published in the University
Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) Review, which is neither located in the review
database nor even in the Scopus index. Nonetheless, it has been included along with the Bajunid
(1996) article in the reference lists of several documents that are in the review database (i.e., Bush,
2012; Oplatka, 2004; Walker and Dimmock, 2002). Thus, it has been captured by the co-citation
analysis.
Co-citation analysis uses these co-citation counts to construct measures of similarity between
documents, authors, or journals (McCain, 1990). More specifically, co-citation counts are formu-
lated into co-citation matrices that serve as the basis for analytical techniques used in science
mapping such as multidimensional scaling and VOS (McCain, 1990; Small, 1973; Van Eck and
Waltman, 2017). In this review, VOSviewer software was used to conduct co-citation analyses and
to create visual representations of the relationships among authors and among topics in the
10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

800

700

600 Anglo-America-
Number of Arcles Published

Europe
500

400

Overall Emerging
300
Regions
200 Asia

100
Africa
0 Lan America
1965-69 1970-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-18
Time Period, 1965-2018

Figure 4. Change in EDLM publication volume over time within and across emerging regions, 1965–2018
n ¼ 1171 studies.
EDLM: educational leadership and management.

emerging-regions knowledge base. Thus, co-citation analysis provides a complementary but argu-
ably broader measure of influence than traditional citation analysis.

Results
This section presents results with respect to patterns of EDLM knowledge production in the
emerging regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Presentation of the results are aligned to
the three research questions.

Volume, growth trajectory, and geographic distribution

The 1171 emerging-regions articles represent 21.2% of the full EDLM corpus published in the
nine journals. In light of past critiques (Bajunid, 1996; Hallinger, 1995; Mertkan et al., 2017;
Walker and Dimmock, 2002), this volume of emerging-regions research was larger than
expected. The first publications from emerging regions did not appear until the 1970s, during
which nine articles were published (see Figure 4). Indeed, up until 1990, only 18 emerging-
regions articles appeared in these journals: 14 from Asia, four from Africa, and none from Latin
America. These 18 articles represented only 1.4% of the EDLM corpus published in these
journals during the initial 25-year period of the review. This affirms critiques published in the
1990s that asserted a strong geographical imbalance in the EDLM literature (e.g., Bajunid, 1996;
Hallinger, 1995).
Publication volume only began to increase perceptibly in the 1990s, during which 158 articles
were published. Mirroring the broader growth trajectory of the EDLM literature (Hallinger,
2018b), emerging-regions publication volume continued to increase in subsequent decades (see
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 11

Figure 5. Global distribution of the EDLM literature from emerging regions, 1965–2018.
n ¼ 1171.
EDLM: educational leadership and management.

Figure 4). Thus, emerging-regions scholarship has increased dramatically over the past 20 years
both in raw volume and as a proportion of the global EDLM literature. Quite unexpectedly, during
the three-year period 2015–2018, emerging-regions articles rose to comprise 42.4% of the full
EDLM corpus published in these nine journals. This is a remarkable change in the composition of
the global EDLM knowledge base, and one that has likely gone unnoticed by many scholars and
journal editors in our field.
At the same time, however, contributions to EDLM research have not been evenly distributed,
either across or within the emerging regions (see Figures 4 and 5). Geographical disaggregation of
the emerging-regions literature found that scholarship from Asia (973 articles) accounted for 83%
of the articles, followed by Africa with 12% (138 articles), and Latin America with 5% (60
articles). This finding suggests that the results of this review are quite skewed by the imbalanced
distribution of publication volume toward Asian scholarship.
As indicated in Figure 5, patterns of knowledge production were similarly imbalanced within
each of the three regions. Indeed, the map illustrates clearly that each region has societies with high
levels of EDLM research output and “blank spots” where empirical information on the EDLM is
lacking. Regional leaders in EDLM scholarship include Hong Kong, Israel, China, Singapore,
Malaysia, and Turkey in Asia, South Africa in Africa, and Chile in Latin America. Taken together,
these findings offer encouragement that the field is growing rapidly beyond the traditional centers
of EDLM knowledge production, but also frame the significant challenges that lie ahead in
developing a global field of study.
12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Identification of influential journals, authors and articles

The second research question focuses on composition of the emerging-regions knowledge base
from the perspective of “composition.” Analysis of journal contributions to the emerging-regions
literature found considerable variation in both document volume and impact. As shown in Table
1, International Journal of Educational Management (IJEM), Journal of Educational Admistra-
tion (JEA), and Educational Management and Leadership Administration (EMLA) have been the
most active disseminators by volume of publications.3 It should be emphasized, however, that
large differences exist in the frequency and duration of publication among the journals, and
therefore in the total number of articles published by each. By proportion of articles, IJEM, JEA,
and International Journal of Leadership in Education (IJLE) have devoted the most publication
space to emerging-regions literature. By contrast, Leadership and Policy in Schools (LPS) and
Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ) have published surprisingly few emerging-regions
articles, either by raw total or proportion of publications. Longitudinal analysis reaffirmed that
these patterns have remained consistent over the course of the past decade (not tabled).
In terms of Scopus citations, JEA ranked first, slightly ahead of IJEM (see Table 1). However,
despite publishing significantly less emerging-regions scholarship, EAQ and SESI led the nine
journals in terms of “Scopus citations per document”. Journal co-citation analysis offered further
insight into scholarly impact by analyzing journals included in the reference lists of documents
included in the review database. Journal co-citation analysis found that the 10 most influential
journals in order of co-citations were: JEA, EAQ, EMAL, School Leadership and Management
(SLM), School Effectiveness and School Improvement (SESI), IJEM, Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, Educational Leadership, Teaching and Teacher Education, and Academy of Management
Journal (not tabled). Taken together, these journal analyses suggest that among the nine EDLM
journals included in this review, IJEM and JEA have been the most hospitable to emerging-regions
papers and that JEA and EAQ have demonstrated the strongest scholarly impact.
Citation analysis, shown in Table 2, was also used to identify scholars who have published the
most articles and gained the most Scopus citations (i.e., Hallinger, Walker, Oplatka, Y.C. Cheng,
Dimmock). Notably, the 20 most highly cited scholars all came from East Asia (e.g., Hallinger,
Walker, Cheng, Dimmock, Kwan, Lee, Cheung, Wong) and Israel (e.g., Oplatka, Somech,
Bogler, Rosenblatt, Schechter, Nir, Eyal, Arar). The absence of scholars from Africa and Latin
America in Table 2 reflects the earlier-cited imbalance in regional contributions to this literature.
Nonetheless, the author noted that the most productive scholars in the Latin American corpus
were Slater, Weinstein, Galdames, and Shin, and Mestry, Oduro, Moorosi, Bush, Heystek,
Nguni, and Grant in the African EDLM literature (not tabled).
Next, the author used citation analysis to identify the most highly cited emerging-regions
journal articles (see Table 3). First, it is noted that these highlycited documents span the 15-
year period 1996–2011 during which emerging-regions scholarship first began to achieve a
“critical mass.” The fact that none of the articles in Table 3 was published after 2011 reflects the
fact that citation analysis disadvantages the most recent publications (Zupic and Čater, 2015). With
this in mind, the fact that six of the top 20 papers in the list were published from 2009 to 2011
further highlights the impact of these papers.
It is also notable that Table 3 includes a mix of empirical (eight), conceptual (seven), review
(three), and commentary (two) articles. This pattern is interesting in that reviews of research often
dominate lists of highly cited articles (Hallinger, 2014, 2018b). Indeed, the presence of so many
conceptual papers among the 20 most highly cited papers (35%) in this literature is at odds with
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 13

their much lower representation in the full database (i.e., 10%). Additional analysis revealed that
several of these conceptual papers were among the earliest published papers to assert the impor-
tance of adopting a cultural lens in EDLM scholarship (Bajunid, 1996; Cheng and Wong, 1996;
Dimmock and Walker, 1998, 2000; Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996). Thus, these can be considered
seminal papers that launched the development of this emerging-regions literature.
The empirical studies in Table 3 are similarly noteworthy for their use of increasingly sophis-
ticated conceptual models and constructs related to instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2011a),
transformational leadership (Nguni et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2002), collaborative leadership (Hal-
linger and Heck, 2010a, 2010b, 2011), teacher capacity (Hallinger and Heck, 2010a, 2010b, 2011;
Nguni et al., 2006), and job satisfaction and commitment (Bogler, 2001; Nguni et al., 2006;
Somech and Bogler, 2002; Yu et al., 2002). These empirical studies also featured methodological
advancements such as multilevel modeling, longitudinal data analysis, and multifactor statistical
methods. In tandem, and somewhat surprisingly, these conceptual and methodological features
place the top-cited empirical studies in the emerging-regions literature at the forefront of advance-
ments in EDLM scholarship globally.

Intellectual structure of the emerging-regions knowledge base

The final research question focused on the intellectual structure of the emerging-regions knowl-
edge base in EDLM. The analytical strategy used to address this question employed “co-citation
analysis” of authors and keyword co-occurrence analysis, or co-word analysis.
Co-citation analysis identified an “author co-citation network composed of 37,925 authors” in
the reference lists of articles in the review database. Thus, co-citation analysis of influential
scholars went far beyond the authors and articles located in the actual review database. Co-
citation analysis revealed that the most influential scholars in the emerging-regions literature were
Hallinger, Leithwood, Walker, Y. C. Cheng, Harris, Heck, Dimmock, Fullan, Murphy, Bush, Hoy,
Oplatka, and Day (not tabled).
VOSviewer was next used to generatean author co-citation map (see Figure 6). The author co-
citation map shows nodes, each representing a different scholar. Size of the node reflects the
volume of author co-citations. Proximity of scholars to one another reflects their “intellectual
affinity” based on the number of their co-citations. Density of links between scholars reflects
scholars who are frequently cited with one another. The map also groups authors into colored
“clusters” that serve as proxies for the “schools of thought” that comprise the knowledge base
(McCain, 1990; Small, 1999; Van Eck and Waltman, 2017). Schools of thought reflect common
theoretical perspectives and/or lines of inquiry shared among scholars (White and McCain, 1998;
Zupic and Čater, 2015).
The threshold for co-citation analysis was set at 15 author co-citations and a display of 85
authors on the map. The colored clusters shown in Figure 6 illuminate four distinct schools of
thought. The gold cluster is largely composed of scholars who have focused on “Cultural Perspec-
tives on School Leadership and Change.” Scholars in this school of thought have tended to study
how school leadership, change, and educational reform are shaped by the cultural and institutional
contexts of societies located in these emerging regions (Bajunid, 1996; Cheng, 2009; Cheng and
Walker, 2008; Dimmock and Walker, 1998; Walker and Hallinger, 2015). This school of thought
has been led by the contributions from East Asia by Allan Walker, Y. C. Cheng, and Clive
Dimmock. This is perhaps the clearest example of a distinctive emerging-regions school of
thought.
14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Figure 6. Network map of author co-citations for emerging-regions scholarship, 1965–2018.

N ¼ 37,925 authors; threshold 15 citations, 85 authors.

The red cluster evidences a more eclectic focus reflected in a dispersed distribution of author
nodes. Within this school of thought, one group of Anglo-American-European scholars focuses on
Leading Teacher Change (e.g., Fullan, Louis, A. Hargeaves). A second group of scholars occupy-
ing the left region of this cluster (e.g., Hoy, Somech, Oplatka, Nir, Blasé, Sleegers) have focused
specifically on how leadership impacts teacher psychological attitudes (e.g., teacher job satisfac-
tion, commitment trust, learning). Notably, this latter group includes strong representation by
Israeli scholars. This has potential to develop into a second culturally distinctive literature within
emerging-regions scholarship. The distance and paucity of links between the red and gold clusters
suggest that these two emerging-regions schools of thought are developing largely independent of
one another.
The green cluster consists of scholars whose research has focused on “Principal Leadership for
Learning.” This school of thought has been led by contributions from Western scholars such as
Ken Leithwood, Philip Hallinger, Joe Murphy, and Ron Heck. The centrality of this cluster in the
network map highlights the global prominence of this school of thought as well as its influence on
emerging-regions scholarship. Hallinger’s location directly adjacent to the gold cluster reflects his
cross-over relationship with the East Asian school of thought as well as well as the prominence of
his earlier scholarship while located in the USA.
Finally, a more dispersed blue cluster is discerned with dual foci on Shared Leadership (Harris,
Spillane, Bush, Gronn) and School Improvement (Harris, Hopkins, Day, Sammons Mulford, and
MacBeath). The more dispersed character of this cluster reflects its intertwined relationship with
other clusters.
Also notable in this co-citation analysis map is the central location of several scholars whose
nodes touch upon, and have dense links with, multiple clusters. In the science-mapping literature,
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 15

Figure 7. Temporal keyword co-occurrence analysis of emerging-regions research in EDLM, 2006–2015.

EDLM, educational leadership and management.

these characteristics are used to define “boundary-spanning authors” whose scholarship integrates
or connects ideas from different schools of thought. By this standard, K. Leithwood, J. Murphy, A.
Harris, P. Hallinger, and C. Day stand out as boundary-spanning scholars in this literature. The fact
that among these scholars only Hallinger, and to a lesser extent Harris, have beenlocated in an
emerging region suggests the extent to which scholarship in these regions has been influenced by
global scholarship. That is, scholars within the emerging regions still tend to cite global intellectual
leaders more than scholars in their own region or in other emerging regions.
The final step in the analytical strategy employed keyword co-occurrence analysis or co-word
analysis. Zupic and Čater (2015) explained that

. . . when words frequently co-occur in documents, it means that the concepts behind those words are
closely related . . . The output of co-word analysis is a network of themes and their relations that
represent the conceptual space of a field. (Zupic and Čater, 2015: 435)

Co-word analysis complements co-citation analysis by adding topical specificity to analysis of

the composition of the knowledge base (Börner et al., 2003; Ding et al., 2001; Zupic and Čater,
2015). Notably, unlike citation analysis, co-word analysis identifies themes directly from words
contained in the documents.
The co-word search was set to “All Keywords” located in titles, keywords and indexes of docu-
ments, with a threshold of at least five cases of keyword co-occurrence (i.e., a keyword co-occurring in
two documents). A “thesaurus file” (Van Eck and Waltman, 2017) was created and applied to reduce
unwanted redundancy between duplicative keywords such as “principal” and “principals.” This anal-
ysis yielded a co-word map set to display the 60 most frequently co-occurring keywords and was color-
coded to indicate the relative popularity of topics in recent years (see Figure 7).
16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

The centrality of “school leadership,” “school management,” “principal”, and “higher education”
on the co-word map, the size of their nodes, and their proximity to each other, suggest that these
represent the key topical foci within the overall emerging-regions literature. The reader should recall
that the author did not employ these as keywords to identify articles for this review. Instead, these
keywords surfaced via an independent analysis of co-word occurrence in articles produced over the
publication history of these journals. This affirms the centrality of these topics within this literature.
The author wishes to suggest that this finding would not necessarily have been predicted
(Hallinger, 2018b; Oplatka, 2010). Indeed, the map suggests that issues of education finance,
policy, governance, culture, change, school improvement, and education reform literally revolve
around and take their meaning from these three key topics within this literature. An additional, and
somewhat unexpected topic that evidenced high co-word frequency, was “higher education”. This
is significant in that no journals that specialize explicitly in higher education were included in the
review database.
Science mapping has also been used in the identification of the research front or “growing tip”
of the literature (de Solla Price, 1965). Identification of the research front alerts scholars to the
most recent topical trends emerging within a literature. The patterns revealed in Figure 7 suggest
that the research front in the emerging-regions literature in EDLM lies in papers that examine
principal and shared leadership (e.g., instructional, distributed, transformational leadership) in
relation to student achievement and curriculum reform. Other topics of recent interest include
social justice, school improvement, teacher learning, accountability, and leadership development.

Discussion
This research review was undertaken with the goal of mapping research on EDLM from the
emerging regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Using science-mapping methods, the author
analyzed features of 1171 articles published in nine Scopus-indexed EDLM journals between 1965
and 2018. This concluding section highlights limitations of the review method, and offers inter-
pretation and implications of the findings.

Limitations
The most salient limitation of this review follows from the decision to focus on articles published in a
bounded set of nine international refereed EDLM journals that are published in English. If the author
had broadened the primary database to include articles from journals such as Management in
Education, NASSP Bulletin, and/or Educational Leadership, the UK- and USA-centric focus of these
journals would only have further accentuated the publication gaps reported in this review. This
delimitation of the review was, therefore, justified on the grounds that these nine international EDLM
journals would provide a representative picture of the evolution of emerging-regions scholarship.
The author also wishes to reiterate that the author co-citation analysis included in this review
included all authors cited in the reference lists of the 1171 emerging-regions articles in the review
database. This means that the review “reached out” to encompass a much wider literature. In sum,
the author asserts that the decision to focus on this particular set of EDLM journals was suitable for
the purposes of this review.
At the same time, however, the exclusion of journals published in other languages (e.g., Arabic,
French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese) remains an important limitation of this review. As the
global knowledge base in EDLM has begun to advance, scholars have recently started to include
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 17

research published in other languages as well as in English in reviews of research (e.g., Flessa
et al., 2017; Hallinger et al., 2015; Walker et al., 2012). Although including such research was not
practical for the current review, this is a wholly positive development that should be encouraged.
Another limitation concerns this review’s use of the term “emerging regions.” As noted earlier,
each of these regions is heterogeneous in terms of cultures and levels of economic development.
Thus, the author’s use of this term was meant to highlight regions of the world that have tradi-
tionally produced relatively few international publications in EDLM. Over the course of the
review, the author sought to highlight differences both within and across the three regions.

Interpretation and implications of the findings

For a quantitative review of research, this paper tells a richly detailed story about the development
of emerging-regions scholarship within the broader field of educational leadership and manage-
ment. During the mid-1990s, a handful of EDLM scholars decried the scarcity of research pub-
lished in international journals from outside of Anglo–American–European societies (e.g.,
Bajunid, 1996; Hallinger, 1995; Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996). Subsequently, these and other
scholars began to develop conceptual models and methods aimed at enabling the culturally situated
study of school leadership (Dimmock and Walker, 1998, 2000; Walker and Dimmock, 2002). Yet,
to date there have been only limited efforts to document empirically the extent of these perceived
imbalances in the EDLM literature, and if they have diminished during the ensuing two decades
(Hallinger, 2018a; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013; Mertkan et al., 2017; Oplatka and Arar, 2017).
The corpus of 1171 articles from the emerging-regions articles identified in this review repre-
sents a modest but rapidly growing knowledge base. The volume of this corpus of publications is
particularly impressive when one considers the evolution of this literature. Although emerging-
regions scholarship only represents about 20% of the full corpus published in these EDLM
journals, 45% of these articles have been published in the past five years. This represents an
empirically verified “sea-change” in the field. Projecting ahead, the trends documented in this
review (e.g., Figure 4) portend a far more balanced global EDLM knowledge base in the years to
come.
Despite this broad trend of increased knowledge production, there was substantial interregional
variation. While 83% of the emerging-regions publications came from Asia, only 12% were from
Africa and 5% from Latin America. This implies that the findings reported in this review are
heavily skewed toward Asian publications. Thus, overall trends reported in the review do not in all
cases accurately reflect patterns derived from each of the regions.
In addition, the landscape of “within-region variation” was similarly uneven. Although each
region featured one or two peaks (e.g., Hong Kong, Israel, South Africa, Chile), the topography of
knowledge production consisted of many more low-lying valleys. These inter- and intraregional
trends suggest that despite recent impressive overall growth in emerging-regions knowledge
production, the global map of EDLM scholarship is still filled with numerous blank spots (see
Figure 5). This reprises Hallinger’s (1995) and Bajunid’s (1996) contention that despite the
ubiquitous practice of school leadership and management throughout the world, our knowledge
base remains highly uneven in terms of geographic scope.
A key challenge in the coming decades will be to build research capacity among scholars across
the emerging regions. The good news is that data reported in this review affirm a positive trajectory
for emerging-regions scholarship broadly defined. In addition, the review identified centers of
research excellence within each of the regions that could potentially be leveraged through
18 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

cooperative ventures. By way of example, the Asia Leadership Roundtable, launched by the
Education University of Hong Kong in 2010, has fostered a focused research agenda, enhanced
research capacity, and contributed significantly to the East Asia region’s output over the past half-
dozen years. Indeed, a significant portion of the East Asian scholarship produced since 2010 can be
traced to these cooperative efforts.
In 2016, an Africa Leadership Roundtable was initiated by scholars at the University of Johan-
nesburg with similar aims and strategies for capacity-building and publication. These initiatives
have employed a two-pronged strategy that links regional scholars with each other, as well as with
influential international scholars. These and other types of intra- and inter-regional cooperation can
be employed to build capacity and knowledge production in the coming decade.
This leads to the next key finding, which concerned the role of journals in disseminating formal
knowledge about EDLM practices. IJEM, JEA, EMLA, SLM, and IJLE evidenced the highest fre-
quency of publishing emerging-regions scholarship among the nine journals. JEA, IJEM, EMAL, and
SLM led the journals respectively in total citation impact. However, EAQ evidenced by far the highest
rate of citations per document (see Table 1). Journal co-citation analysis revealed JEA and EAQ as the
most influential journals publishing emerging-regions scholarship. This was rather surprising because
EAQ ranked near the bottom of the nine journals on emerging-regions publication volume.
This apparent anomaly supports the perception shared informally among emerging-regions
scholars that publication in EAQ will achieve the highest impact for their scholarship. Yet, the
findings also suggest that the likelihood of successful publication by emerging-regions scholars in
EAQ is exceedingly small. Only 43 of EAQ’s total corpus of 1007 articles consisted of emerging-
regions scholarship (4.2%), and 16 of 43 those articles were authored by just two scholars
(A. Somech and P. Hallinger).4 Absent their contributions, the proportion of emerging-regions
scholarship drops to only 2.6% of the EAQ corpus. It was further noted that this trend has not
changed significantly over the past decade, thereby affirming the sense that publication of
emerging-regions scholarship in EAQ is akin to an “impossible dream”.
However, the implication of this analysis goes beyond EAQ’s role in publishing emerging-
regions scholarship. Quite a few EDLM journals have historically adopted a “national focus”—
either implicitly or explicitly. All journals will need to reconsider their publication priorities during
an era when EDLM is transitioning into a global field of applied research, policy, and practice.
Another contribution of science mapping lies in the empirical verification of several distinct
schools of thought that comprise the intellectual structure of the emerging-regions knowledge base.
Author co-citation analysis revealed that since the mid-1990s a distinctive literature has grown up
within EDLM based on emerging-regions scholarship. This was most apparent with respect to
scholarship on principal leadership and change from East Asia and scholarship on principal
leadership and teacher attitudes from Israel. Although the analyses conducted in this review did
not study topical foci by region, prior reviews of research can amplify this picture. For example,
Hallinger (2018c) reported that the African literature in EDLM contained four key topical foci:
principal leadership, school governance, social justice, and leadership development. Flessa and
colleagues (2017) and Castillo and Hallinger (2018) identified school effectiveness, principalship,
and leadership training and development as key topical foci in Latin America. Taken together with
findings from this review, the author speculates that regions (and societies) may develop distinc-
tive sets of topical priorities based on needs and policies in different local contexts (see Clarke and
O’Donoghue, 2017; Hallinger, 2018a).
Before conducting this review, the size, the density, and the coherence of emerging-regions
scholarship in EDLM could not have been predicted. Yet, the review has empirically documented
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 19

each of these dimensions of the emerging-regions knowledge base. This leads to the recommen-
dation that regional scholars should conduct substantive reviews of regional scholarship guided, at
least in part, by the four schools of thought identified in this review. The author anticipates that
research synthesis will be more suitable than meta-analysis at this stage of review. The goal of
these reviews would be to illuminate the substantive contributions of regional scholarship to the
broader findings that describe each of the four broad domains or schools of thought.
Thus, for example, a substantial emerging-regions literature has grown up on Principal Lead-
ership and Learning. A research synthesis would first highlight the results of emerging-regions
studies in this domain from a particular region and then compare these with findings from Anglo-
American-European societies. A similar approach could be employed with the other schools as
well. Together these reviews would provide a useful lens to sharpen our understanding of how
cultural and institutional contexts influence the enactment of leadership for learning (Bajunid,
1996; Clarke and O’Donoghue, 2017; Hallinger, 2018a).
Finally, the author would like to reflect on the value of science mapping as a method of research
review. Zupic and Čater (2015) proposed that science mapping represents a third approach to
research review that complements research synthesis and meta-analysis. The current effort at
mapping contributions to the EDLM knowledge base from emerging regions illustrates the poten-
tial of this approach. While this review took a broad perspective on EDLM scholarship, science
mapping can also be applied to specific lines of inquiry (e.g., leading change, distributed leader-
ship, social justice, gender and school leadership) or to scholarship published by a single journal
(see Zupic and Čater, 2015). In closing, this reviewer wishes to strongly endorse science mapping
as a valid approach to research review and encourage other EDLM scholars to embrace this method
to enhance the long-term development of our field.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.

ORCID iD
Philip Hallinger https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5935-7544

Notes
1. Note that the author characterized these as “nine core international research journals” rather than “the nine
core international research journals . . . .” Although any selection of “the core journals” is disputable, the
author asserts that this set is a reasonably comprehensive yet focused list of educational leadership
journals.
2. It should be noted that none of these journals pre-dated 1960.
3. The journal School Organization (SO) should be treated as a special case, because it stopped publishing in
1997 when it was reissued as School Leadership and Management.
4. Calculation of Hallinger’s publications are based on affiliation at the time of publication.
20 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

References
Bajunid IA (1996) Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational management: the
evolving Malaysian experience. Journal of Educational Administration 34(5): 50–73.
Bogler R (2001) The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration
Quarterly 37(5): 662–683.
Bogler R and Somech A (2005) Organizational citizenship behavior in school: How does it relate to partic-
ipation in decision making? Journal of Educational Administration 43(5): 420–438.
Börner K, Chen C and Boyack KW (2003) Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology 37(1): 179–255.
Bridges E (1982) Research on the school administrator: the state-of-the-art, 1967–1980. Educational Admin-
istration Quarterly 18(3): 12–33.
Bush T (2012) International perspectives on leadership development: making a difference. Professional
Development in Education 38(4): 663–678.
Bush T and Oduro GK (2006) New principals in Africa: preparation, induction and practice. Journal of
Educational Administration 44(4): 359–375.
Castillo FA and Hallinger P (2018) Systematic review of research on educational leadership and management
in Latin America, 1991–2017. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(2): 207–225.
Cheng KM and Wong KC (1996) School effectiveness in East Asia: concepts, origins and implications.
Journal of Educational Administration 34(5): 32–49.
Cheng YC (2009) Hong Kong educational reforms in the last decade: reform syndrome and new develop-
ments. International Journal of Educational Management 23(1): 65–86.
Cheng YC and Walker A (2008) When reform hits reality: the bottleneck effect in Hong Kong primary
schools. School Leadership and Management 28(5): 505–521.
Clarke S and O’Donoghue T (2017) Educational leadership and context: a rendering of an inseparable
relationship. British Journal of Educational Studies 65(2): 167–182.
De Solla Price DJ (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149(3683): 510–515.
Dimmock C and Walker A (1998) Comparative educational administration: developing a cross-cultural
conceptual framework. Educational Administration Quarterly 34(4): 558–595.
Dimmock C and Walker A (2000) Developing comparative and international educational leadership and
management: a cross-cultural model. School Leadership and Management 20(2): 143–160.
Ding Y, Chowdhury GG and Foo S (2001) Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by
using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management 37(6): 817–842.
Donmoyer R (1999) The continuing quest for a knowledge base: 1976-1998. In: Murphy J and Louis K (eds.)
Handbook of Research on Educational Administration. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 25–43.
Eidell T and Kitchel J (Eds) (1968) Knowledge Production and Utilization in Educational Administration.
Eugene: ERIC.
Flessa J, Bramwell D, Fernandez M and Weinstein J (2017) School leadership in Latin America 2000–2016.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 46(2): 162–206.
Gumus S, Bellibas MS, Esen M and Gumus E (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in
educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1): 25–48.
Hallinger P (1995) Culture and leadership: developing an international perspective in educational adminis-
tration. UCEA Review 36(1): 3–7.
Hallinger P (2011a) A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the principal instructional manage-
ment rating scale: a lens on methodological progress in educational leadership. Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly 47(2): 271–306.
Hallinger: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership 21

Hallinger P (2011b) Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Edu-
cational Administration 49(2): 125–142.
Hallinger P (2014) Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership: an empirical assessment. Edu-
cational Administration Quarterly 50(4): 539–576.
Hallinger P (2018a) Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Adminis-
tration & Leadership 46(1): 5–24.
Hallinger P (2018b) A Bibliometric Review of Research on Educational Administration: Science Mapping the
Literature, 1960–2018. (Unpublished paper.) Bangkok, Thailand: Mahidol University.
Hallinger P (2018c) Surfacing a hidden literature: a systematic review of research on educational leadership
and management in Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(3): 362–384.
Hallinger P and Bryant D (2013) Mapping the terrain of educational leadership and management in East Asia.
Journal of Educational Administration 51(5): 618–637.
Hallinger P and Chen J (2015) Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia: a
comparative analysis of research topics and methods, 1995–2012. Educational Management Administra-
tion & Leadership 43(1): 5–27.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (2010a) Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the
impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management 30(2): 95–110.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (2010b) Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in
school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(6): 654–678.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (2011) Exploring the journey of school improvement: classifying and analyzing
patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement 22(1): 1–27.
Hallinger P and Leithwood K (1996) Culture and educational administration: a case of finding out what you
don’t know you don’t know. Journal of Educational Administration 34(5): 98–116.
Hallinger P, Walker A and Trung GT (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.
Heck RH and Hallinger P (2005) The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field
stand today? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 33(2): 229–244.
McCain KW (1990) Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science 41(6): 433–443.
Mertkan S, Arsan N, Inal Cavlan G and Onurkan Aliusta G (2017) Diversity and equality in academic
publishing: the case of educational leadership. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education 47(1): 46–61.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097.
Murphy J, Vriesenga M and Storey V (2007) Educational Administration Quarterly 1979–2003: an
analysis of types of work, methods of investigation, and influences. Educational Administration
Quarterly 43(5): 612–628.
Nerur SP, Rasheed AA and Natarajan V (2008) The intellectual structure of the strategic management field:
an author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal 29(3): 319–336.
Nguni S, Sleegers P and Denessen E (2006) Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools:
the Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 145–177.
Ogawa R, Goldring E and Conley S (2000) Organizing the field to improve research on educational admin-
istration. Educational Administration Quarterly 36(3): 340–357.
22 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Oplatka I (2004) The principalship in developing countries: context, characteristics and reality. Comparative
Education 40(3): 427–448.
Oplatka I (2010) The Legacy of Educational Administration: A Historical Analysis of an Academic Field.
London: Peter Lang.
Oplatka I and Arar KH (2017) The research on educational leadership and management in the Arab world
since the 1990s: a systematic review. Review of Education 5(30): 267–307.
Ribbins P and Gunter H (2002) Mapping leadership studies in education: towards a typology of knowledge
domains. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 30(4): 359–385.
Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two
documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 24(4): 265–269.
Small H (1999) Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science 50(9): 799–813.
Somech A and Bogler R (2002) Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional
commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(4): 555–577.
Van Eck NJ and Waltman L (2017) Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and
VOSviewer. Scientometrics 111(2): 1053–1070.
Walker AD and Dimmock C (2002) Moving school leadership beyond its narrow boundaries: developing a
cross-cultural approach. In: Leithwood K and Hallinger P (eds.) Second International Handbook of
Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 67–204.
Walker A and Hallinger P (2015) A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia.
Journal of Educational Administration 53(4): 554–570.
Walker A, Hu R and Qian H (2012) Principal leadership in China: an initial review. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement 23(4): 369–399.
Watkins D (2000) Learning and teaching: a cross-cultural perspective. School Leadership and Management
20(2): 161–173.
White HD and McCain KW (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.
Yu H, Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2002) The effects of transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment
to change in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Administration 40(4): 368–389.
Yuen AH, Law N and Wong KC (2003) ICT implementation and school leadership: case studies of ICT
integration in teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration 41(2): 158–170.
Zupic I and Čater T (2015) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research
Methods 18(3): 429–472.

Author biography
Philip Hallinger is the Thailand Sustainable Development Foundation Chair Professor of
Leadership at the College of Management, Mahidol University (Thailand) and the Distinguished
Visiting Professor at the Department of Educational Leadership and Management, University of
Johannesburg (South Africa). His research interests include instructional leadership, sustainable
leadership, leadership effects, and international educational leadership.