The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Bibliometric Review of Research on Educational Administration: Science Mapping the Literature, 1960 to 2018
Abstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 · Cited by 21,484
Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning
Bandura, A. (1993) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 · Cited by 7,655
Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114562629 · Cited by 7,495
Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents
Small, H. (1973) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/asi.4630240406 · Cited by 5,345
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 · Cited by 5,274
Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems
Weick, K. E. (1976) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391875 · Cited by 5,142
The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations
Kaplan, N., Merton, R. K., & Storer, N. W. (1974) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3102264 · Cited by 4,005
Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21525 · Cited by 3,242
Cited by
Nguyen, D., Harris, A., & Ng, D. (2019) · Journal of Educational Administration · doi:10.1108/jea-02-2018-0023 · Cited by 328
Arar, K., Tlili, A., Schunka, L., Salha, S., & Saiti, A. (2025) · Leadership and Policy in Schools · doi:10.1080/15700763.2025.2451982 · Cited by 43
Choosing the Right Tool for the Job: Screening Tools for Systematic Reviews in Education
Zhang, Q., & Neitzel, A. (2024) · Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness · doi:10.1080/19345747.2023.2209079 · Cited by 28
Karakus, M., Usak, M., & Ersozlu, A. (2021) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020988865 · Cited by 27
A Bibliometric Review of Self-Compassion Research: Science Mapping the Literature, 1999 to 2020
Swami, V., Andersen, N., & Furnham, A. (2021) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-021-01662-0 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2019-02-15
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 335-369
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W2914577123
- Cited by
- 490
- References
- 103
- FWCI
- 117.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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 Bibliometric Review of Research on Educational Administration: Science Mapping the Literature, 1960 to 2018. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3102/0034654319830380
- The paper
- Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J. (2019). A Bibliometric Review of Research on Educational Administration: Science Mapping the Literature, 1960 to 2018. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319830380
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.