Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Hallinger, Philip·2013·Journal of Educational Administration

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for scholars carrying 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 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. 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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/09578231311304670

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 63 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Campbell, R.F. (1979), “A critique of the educational administration quarterly”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 1‐19. · doi:10.1177/0013131x7901500303
  2. Campbell, R.F. and Faber, C. (1961), “Administrative behavior: theory and research”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 353‐67. · doi:10.3102/00346543031004353
  3. Erickson, D.A. (1967), “The school administrator”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 417‐32. · doi:10.3102/00346543037004417
  4. Griffiths, D.E. (1979), “Intellectual turmoil in educational administration”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 43‐65. · doi:10.1177/0013131x7901500305
  5. Haller, E. (1979), “Questionnaires and the dissertation in educational administration”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 47‐66. · doi:10.1177/0013131x7901500104
  6. Ribbins, P. and Gunter, H. (2002), “Mapping leadership studies in education: towards a typology of knowledge domains”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 359‐85. · doi:10.1177/0263211x020304002

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
Hallinger, P.
Venue
Journal of Educational Administration
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2013-03-15
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
126-149
ISSN
0957-8234 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2109710743
Cited by
332
References
63
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09578231311304670
The paper
Hallinger, P. (2013). A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management. Journal of Educational Administration. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304670

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.