educational management administration & leadership 2015 hallinger 5 27

Upload: agnes-lau

Post on 07-Aug-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    1/23

     Article

    Review of research oneducational leadership

    and management in Asia:A comparative analysisof research topics andmethods, 1995–2012

    Philip Hallinger and Junjun Chen

    Abstract

    Over the past two decades scholars have called for a more concerted effort to develop an empiricallygrounded literature on educational leadership outside of mainstream ‘‘Western’’ contexts. Thispaper reports the results of a review of research topics and methods that comprise the literature oneducational leadership and management in Asia between 1995 and 2012. The review of researchemployed a quantitative descriptive form of systematic review of 478 articles published in eight‘‘core’’ international journals in educational leadership and management over this period. The review

    examined trends in publication volume and impact, as well as research topics and methods used byscholars studying educational leadership and management in Asia. The study concluded that Asianscholarship in educational leadership and management remains in the early stages of development.Knowledge production is highly uneven across the continent, with only a few pockets of researchexcellence. Significant growth trends were observed in terms of scholarly interest in studyingleadership in K-12 schools, school change, effects and improvement, and organizational behavior ineducation. Although qualitative research methods were more popular in this literature prior to 2006,the use of quantitative research methods has increased sharply during the past six years.

    Keywords

    Administration, educational leadership, educational management, Asia, K-12 schools

    Introduction

    Educational leadership and management is first and foremost an applied field of study. Historically,

    our field’s theoretical contributions to scholarship in related fields of organizational behavior,

    Corresponding author:

    Phillip Hallinger, Professor of Education Management, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, ThailandEmail: [email protected]

    Educational Management

    Administration & Leadership

    2015, Vol. 43(1) 5–27ª The Author(s) 2014

    Reprints and permission:

    sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

    DOI: 10.1177/1741143214535744

    emal.sagepub.com

    5

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://emal.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://emal.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    2/23

    management, leadership, psychology, and sociology have been few and far between (Bridges,

    1982; Campbell, 1979; Campbell and Faber, 1961; Donmoyer et al., 1995; Griffiths, 1979; March,

    1978; Murphy et al., 2007; Ogawa et al., 2000). Thus, research on educational leadership and man-

    agement must be evaluated primarily in terms of its ability to inform policy and practice in edu-

    cational organizations.Scholars have further noted that the literature on educational leadership and management has been

    dominated by contributions from English-speaking, Western societies (Dimmock, 2000; Dimmock 

    and Walker, 2005; Hallinger, 2011b; Hallinger et al., 2005). Consequently, as a field of study, we have

    only a limited understanding of how educational leadership and management is practiced outside of 

    these contexts. As recognition of this limitation has grown over the past 20 years, scholars have called 

    for a broader-based effort at building a ‘‘globally relevant knowledge base’’ in educational leadership

    and management (e.g. Belchetz and Leithwood, 2007; Bush and Qiang, 2002; Dimmock and Walker,

    2005; Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996, 1998). A ‘‘global knowledge base’’ would be capable of pro-

    viding a more fine-grained understanding of how school leaders meet the challenges of managing

    schools across different organizational and socio-cultural contexts (Bajunid, 1996; Belchetz and Leithwood, 2007; Cheng, 1995; Dimmock and Walker, 2005; Goldring et al., 2008; Hallinger,

    1995; Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996, 1998; Hallinger et al., 2005; Walker and Dimmock, 2000).

    The current study seeks to understand patterns of knowledge production in educational leader-

    ship and management across societies in Asia since the mid-1990s. The study addressed the fol-

    lowing research questions:

    What was the volume of articles published on educational leadership and management from

    Asia and how has it changed since the mid-1990s?

    How is this literature distributed in terms of the kinds of articles published in international

     journals (e.g. non-empirical, empirical, review)?

    What has been the topical focus of articles of scholars studying educational leadership and 

    management in Asia?

    What methodological preferences are evident in the scholarship on educational leadership

    and management in Asia?

    What does the pattern of citation impact of publications reveal about knowledge accumula-

    tion in the ‘‘Asian literature’’ on educational leadership and management?

    This research holds the possibility of making several contributions to the global literature on edu-

    cational leadership and management. By outlining the contours of the Asian literature (e.g. topics,

    kinds, methods), the review can highlight ‘‘blank spots and blind spots’’ in the existing Asian knowl-

    edge base (Hallinger and Heck, 1996). This should be of service to researchers as they select foci and methods for future studies. In addition, the comparative approach taken in this review enriches our 

     perspective on the diversity of higher education development within Asia and globally. This is a nec-

    essary building block for the development of a ‘‘comparative literature’’ in educational leadership

    and management (Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996, 1998; Walker and Dimmock, 2000, 2002).

    Historical overview of knowledge production in the field of educational

    leadership and management

    Prior to examining Asian scholarship on educational leadership and management, we begin with ahistorical overview of the field’s development since its inception in the mid-20th century. Reviews

    6   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    6

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    3/23

    of research provide signposts on the path of intellectual development (Hallinger, 2013b). Thus, we

     begin by highlighting findings from a series of reviews of research on educational leadership and 

    management published since the early 1960s. This provides a ‘‘high ground’’ view of changes in

    the field, and lays the foundation for employing a ‘‘comparative perspective’’ to interpreting the

    evolution of the Asian literature.Educational leadership and management first emerged as a field of formal inquiry in the United 

    States during the mid-20th century (Boyan, 1981; Griffiths, 1959, 1979). During the

    1960s, selected scholars (Briner and Campbell, 1964; Campbell and Faber, 1961; Erickson, 1967;

    Lipham, 1964) reviewed the first generation of empirical and theoretical research in educational

    leadership and management, then referred to almost exclusively as ‘‘educational administration.’’

    Scholarship during this period was heavily influenced by the newly emerging ‘‘theory move-

    ment in educational administration’’ (see Campbell and Faber, 1961; Griffiths, 1959, 1979). Pre-

    viously, research in educational administration had consisted largely of a-theoretical case studies

    and ‘‘school surveys.’’ This new intellectual movement sought to reframe research in educational

    administration within the broader theoretical traditions of the social sciences (see Boyan, 1968,1981; Campbell and Faber, 1961; Griffiths, 1959, 1979). Scholars not only encouraged researchers

    to apply theoretical constructs from psychology and sociology but also to employ more varied and 

    systematic research designs and methods (e.g. Bridges, 1982; Campbell, 1979; Erickson, 1967;

    Griffiths, 1979; Haller, 1979; Lipham, 1964).

    The first published reviews also pointed the way towards more productive theoretical con-

    structs, topical foci, and methods for future scholarship (see Briner and Campbell, 1964; Campbell

    and Faber, 1961; Erickson, 1967; Lipham, 1964). The theory movement in educational adminis-

    tration continued to hold sway during the 1960s and 1970s as both senior scholars and doctoral

    students sought to fulfill the vision of creating a ‘‘science of educational administration’’ (Camp-

     bell, 1979; Griffiths, 1979; Kiley, 1973; Moore, 1974). These efforts represented the first explicitattempts among scholars to employ systematic approaches towards knowledge production in edu-

    cational administration (see Campbell, 1979; Erickson, 1967, 1979; Griffiths, 1979; Haller, 1979;

    Kiley, 1973; Lipham, 1964; March, 1978; Moore, 1974).

     Nonetheless, by the early 1980s the theory movement’s influence on scholarship in educational

    administration began to wane. There was a growing feeling among scholars and practitioners that

    the movement had failed to demonstrate substantive progress towards achieving the ambitious goal

    of developing a science of school administration. This was acknowledged in a new series of critical

    reviews conducted by leading scholars previously associated with the theory movement (e.g.

    Boyan, 1981; Bridges, 1982; Campbell, 1979; Erickson, 1979; Griffiths, 1979; Haller, 1979).

    For example, in 1979 Roald Campbell, founding editor of the   Educational AdministrationQuarterly  ( EAQ), was asked to conduct a retrospective assessment of the journal’s contribution

    to knowledge. Campbell analyzed the full set of articles published in   EAQ   since its inception

    15 years earlier. He concluded: ‘‘The published articles deal with such a wide range of issues that

    one is led to conclude that . . . there has been little cumulative building of knowledge in the field’’

    (Campbell, 1979: 16).

    Around the same time, Edwin Bridges (1982) reviewed theories, methodologies and results

    found within a large set of published articles and doctoral studies conducted since the mid-

    1960s. His conclusions reprised a similar theme concerning the lack of knowledge accumulation.

    Research on the school administrator for the period 1967–1980 reminds one of the dictum: The morethings change, the more they remain the same. The state-of-the art is scarcely different from what

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   7

    7

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    4/23

    seemed to be in place nearly 15 years ago . . .  In short, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that a

    major theoretical issue or practical problem relating to school administrators has been resolved by

    those toiling in the intellectual vineyards since 1967 (Bridges, 1982: 24-25).

    Despite this apparent lack of substantive progress, other scholars claimed to see a hint of lightemerging on the horizon (e.g. Bossert et al., 1982; Erickson, 1979; Leithwood and Montgomery,

    1982; Murphy et al., 1983). Although cognizant of continuing theoretical and methodological lim-

    itations in this literature, they suggested that some lines of inquiry related to the practice of school

    leadership showed potential to yield intellectual fruit in the future. For example, in a prescient pre-

    diction, Donald Erickson (1979) made the following observation.

    Three years ago I opined that the most promising relevant work, largely ignored by scholars identified 

    with ‘educational administration’ was the work on ‘school effects’. The literature during the last three

    years has further reinforced my dual conviction that ‘school effects’ studies, broadly defined, represent

    the current leading edge in the research domain I am assessing, and that few scholars affiliated with ‘edu-cational administration’ are taking note of them, though nothing could be more profoundly pertinent than

    the school effects studies to the consequence of educational organization (Erickson, 1979: 10).

    These observations highlighted a growing recognition of the need for programmatic research

    that explored causal connections between the practice of educational administration and teaching

    and learning in schools (Bossert et al., 1982; Bridges, 1967, 1982; Erickson, 1979; Leithwood and 

    Montgomery, 1982; Murphy et al., 1983). Scholars further highlighted the importance of studying

    how the practice of school leadership is shaped by the context in which it is enacted (e.g. Bossert

    et al., 1982; Bridges, 1977, 1982; Getzels et al., 1968). Finally, it was noted that substantive prog-

    ress would only come about through sustained programmatic inquiry that employed a more sys-tematic application of theory and research methods (e.g. Bossert et al., 1982; Bridges, 1982;

    Haller, 1979; Leithwood and Montgomery, 1982; Murphy et al., 1983).

    Subsequently, during the 1990s, findings reported in a new series of research reviews gave cre-

    dence to Erickson’s earlier prediction (Hallinger and Heck, 1996, 1998; Hallinger and Leithwood,

    1994; Leithwood et al., 1990). These reviews identified progress in theoretical application,

    research methodology and substantive results in research specifically focused on school leadership

    and student learning. Equally important, they affirmed the potency of sustained programmatic

    research on a specific line of inquiry as a necessary condition for knowledge accumulation. Thus,

    Hallinger and Heck (1996) concluded:

    The fact that such relationships are emerging form empirical analysis is of both practical and theore-

    tical significance. For practical purposes, we can begin to imagine a day when prescriptions from

    research on leadership effects will do justice to the complexity of the principal’s role. Of theoretical

    significance, the simultaneous modeling of leadership effects in conjunction with organizational goal

    structure and environmental context draws attention back to an important, though underexplored, line

    of inquiry in the organizational theory literature . . .   (1996: 38).

    Thus, by the turn of the 21st century, the field was, for the first time, beginning to demonstrate

    the capacity to generate verifiable, replicable research findings with relevance to practice. More-

    over, progress gathered pace with four notable developments during the first decade of the 21stcentury. First, a broader set of international scholars was becoming actively engaged in empirical

    8   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    8

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    5/23

    research on educational leadership (Hallinger, 2013). Scholars in Europe (Day et al., 2010;

    Southworth, 2002; Witziers et al., 2003) and Austral-Asia (e.g. Gronn, 2002; MacBeath and 

    Cheng, 2008; Mulford and Silins, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008; Walker and Dimmock, 2000) were

     beginning to exercise intellectual leadership, thereby broadening the field’s reach beyond its tradi-

    tional base in North America.Second, the emergence of ‘‘educational administration’’ as a field of global interest also led to a

    subtle but significant ‘‘re-titling’’ of the discipline. Although the American scholarly tradition had 

    used the term educational administration, this came to be viewed as an overly constrained concep-

    tion of the discipline. As noted above, research on ‘‘leadership’’ in schools had assumed a more

    central place in the field during the prior 20 years (Hallinger and Heck, 1996, 1998). Moreover,

    leadership was no longer viewed as a function of organizational roles and hierarchy (e.g. Gronn,

    2002). Thus, the term ‘‘educational leadership and management’’ has gradually supplanted ‘‘edu-

    cational administration’’ as a more widely accepted title for the discipline since the turn of the 21st

    century.1

    Third, during the past decade, the trend of applying more powerful and diverse conceptual and methodological tools to the study of educational leadership and management has continued to

    evolve (Hallinger, 2011a; Heck and Hallinger, 2005; Murphy et al., 2007). Conceptual tools

    include the explicit elaboration and application of more diverse theoretical models to the study

    of school leadership (e.g. transformational, transactional, strategic, instructional, distributed lead-

    ership). Methodological advancements have centered on the use of more systematic approaches in

    carrying out research. This is observable in the means of conducting qualitative research, quanti-

    tative research and research reviews (Hallinger, 2013).

    Although the broad literature continued to evidence some of the shortcomings identified in

    earlier reviews of research (see Hallinger, 2011a), a growing body of high quality studies could 

    also be discerned. Consequently, for the first time, scholars were able to employ sophisticated meta-analytic tools towards the synthesis of findings in the evolving knowledge base (e.g. see

    Leithwood and Sun, 2012; Robinson et al., 2008; Witziers et al., 2003). The results of these

    meta-analytic reviews have reinforced the perception of substantive progress on a selected set

    of issues concerning leadership and learning (see also Day et al., 2010; Leithwood et al.,

    2008; Mulford and Silins, 2003).

    We undertook this historical overview of knowledge production in educational leadership and 

    management in order to provide a comparative background against which to interpret the results of 

    our investigation into the evolving literature on educational leadership and management in Asia.

    Based on this overview, we wish to highlight several conclusions that pertain to successful efforts

    at knowledge production.Although diversity in the choice of topics for research should be honored, progress within a field 

    of inquiry also requires a degree of sustained focus in order to achieve knowledge accumulation

    (Bridges, 1982; Campbell, 1979; Hallinger, 2011a, 2011b; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Murphy

    et al., 2007; Ogawa et al., 2000).

    Repetitive use of ‘‘under-powered methodological tools’’ on either a focused or a diverse set of 

    research questions does not yield substantive progress towards knowledge accumulation (Bridges,

    1982; Haller, 1979; Hallinger, 2011a, 2011b; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Murphy et al., 1983).

    Persistence in examining a research issue through a combination of sustained theoretical and 

    empirical programmatic investigation is required in order to produce knowledge accumulation and 

     breakthroughs in understanding (Bossert et al., 1982; Campbell, 1979; Erickson, 1979; Hallinger and Heck, 1996, 1998; Heck and Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood and Sun, 2012).

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   9

    9

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    6/23

    Qualitative and quantitative studies offer complementary, mutually reinforcing contributions to

    the development of a mature knowledge base in an applied social science domain (Bush, 2006;

    Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005; Murphy et al., 2007).

    Research reviews play a critical role in the construction of knowledge by highlighting intellec-

    tual progress as well as identifying blind spots and blank spots in the field of vision of scholars(Bridges, 1982; Hallinger, 2013a, 2013b; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Murphy et al., 2007).

    The current review employs these conclusions as points of reference in understanding the recent

    evolution of the Asian literature on educational leadership and management. For example, the foci

    selected for this review (e.g. volume, topics, article kinds, research methods, citation impact) mir-

    ror those adopted by past reviewers of research in the field. This approach enables us to compare

     patterns of intellectual progress in Asia with the more general historical development of the field.

    We hope this could lead to strategies for accelerating progress in research capacity development

    and knowledge production in the future (Hallinger, 2011b; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a).

    Method

    This study employed a descriptive, quantitative form of systematic review of research (Gough,

    2007; Hallinger, 2013a). We identified a clearly delimited body of research on educational lead-

    ership and management in Asia, employed a systematic search within that literature, downloaded 

    relevant publications, extracted information from the articles, analyzed trends across the studies,

    and synthesized the results (Cooper and Hedges, 2009; Gough, 2007; Hallinger, 2013a, 2013b;

    Light and Pillemer, 1984). This allowed us to analyze patterns of change in the Asian literature

    on educational leadership and management over the past two decades.

    Data collection

    The review strategy employed in this study entailed a systematic search of eight ‘‘core journals’’ in

    educational leadership and management (Gough, 2007; Hallinger, 2013a, 2013b). The journals

    included  Educational Administration Quarterly   ( EAQ),   Journal of Educational Administration

    ( JEA), School Effectiveness and School Improvement  (SESI ), Educational Management Adminis-

    tration and Leadership  ( EMAL),  International Journal of Leadership in Education ( IJLE ),  Inter-

    national Journal of Educational Management  ( IJEM ),  Leadership and Policy in Schools   ( LPS ),

    and  School Leadership and Management  (SLAM ). While no list of journals can be considered defi-

    nitive, this subset was suited to our goal of understanding characteristics of the current knowledge base on educational leadership and management in Asia. Each of the journals espouses an

    internationally-oriented mission of publishing research, employs blind review procedures, pub-

    lishes in English, and has achieved a reasonable standard of quality and influence as measured 

     by reputation and citation impact (Cherkowski et al., 2012; Hallinger, 2013b; Hallinger and Bry-

    ant, 2013b; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005; Richardson and McLeod, 2009).2

    In order to establish the latter criterion, we used the ‘‘Publish or Perish’’ tool (Harzing, 2007) to

    calculate the current  h-index for these, as well as other potentially relevant journals. The  h-index

    statistic aims to measure the cumulative impact of a researcher’s or journal’s output by analyzing

    the number of citations received (Harzing, 2007).3 The cumulative h-index for these journals ran-

    ged from a low of 23 for  Leadership and Policy in Schools, to a high of 94 for  Educational Admin-istration Quarterly. The mean  h-index  of the journals was 45.4

    10   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    10

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    7/23

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    8/23

      South Asia, inclusive of Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Indian

    Subcontinent; and 

      East Asia, inclusive of Greater China, the Koreas and Japan, and southeast Asian countries.

    Our search found no studies on educational leadership and management from central Asiansocieties. We found publications related to nine societies in west Asia (Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait,

    Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates), three societies in south Asia

    (India, Nepal, and Pakistan), and 13 societies in east Asia (Brunei, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia,

    Japan, Macau, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, The Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan,

    and Thailand). Thus, we focused on the latter three regions in the subsequent analyses.

    We employed ‘‘regions’’ as one key unit of analysis. Nonetheless, we remain cognizant of the

    vast socio-economic, cultural, and political differences among countries across Asia. These differ-

    ences carry over into the maturity of their higher education systems and their levels of research

     productivity (e.g. see Gibbons et al., 1994; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a; Hien, 2010; van Raan,

    1997). Thus, the regional analyses simply offer a broad picture of variation across the continent.We will return to this issue later when we interpret the findings of this study.

    Rather than using a search engine to identify the relevant ‘‘Asian’’ studies, we employed a more

    labor intensive but reliable search method. We searched the websites for each of the eight educa-

    tional leadership and management journals identified above. We went year by year through each

    volume and issue of the eight journals. We read the abstracts of all articles published in these jour-

    nals in order to identify articles about and/or from Asia.7 When an article was deemed to fit this

     basic search criterion, we downloaded a soft file copy of the article. Thus, the downloaded articles

    comprised the full corpus of articles published from or about educational leadership and manage-

    ment in Asia in these eight core journals over this 18-year period.

    Data extraction

     Next we scanned each article with the goal of extracting information relevant to our questions

    related to the production of knowledge about educational leadership and management in Asia. The

    nature of data extracted from the studies was informed by prior reviews of the literature conducted 

    in other parts of the world (e.g. Bridges, 1982; Campbell, 1979; Hallinger, 2011a, In press; Leith-

    wood and Jantzi, 2005; Murphy et al., 2007). Specific data extracted from the articles included the

    author(s), title of the article, journal, regional location of the authors and data source, author’s uni-

    versities, location of the university(s), nature of the report (i.e. empirical, non-empirical, review),

    research method (i.e. qualitative, quantitative, mixed method), presence of funding, and topicaddressed. It should be noted, however, that due to space limitations only selected data are incor-

     porated into the analyses reported in this paper. That is, the scope of issues addressed by the various

    data extracted from the articles was too large to include in a single research report.

    Where appropriate, the data were coded (Gough, 2007; Hallinger, 2013a). For example,

    research methods, kind of research, funding, and topic were assigned code numbers. The raw and 

    coded data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. This facilitated the subsequent quantitative

    analysis of publication trends across hundreds of studies.

    During this process, it became apparent that other complementary data might be useful for 

    informing our analyses. So we added data on other relevant variables to the rows describing the

    articles in the spreadsheet. These included, for example, the  h-index  of each specific article, theannual citation rate of each article, and the  h-index  for each of the eight journals. The resulting

    12   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    12

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    9/23

    spreadsheet contained a wealth of information about the published international literature on edu-

    cational leadership and management in Asia. This represented the corpus of knowledge that we

    analyzed to address the questions posed at the outset of this paper.

    Data analysis

    The primary goal of this ‘‘exploratory review of research’’ (Hallinger, 2013a) was to describe trends

    in research conducted in Asian research on educational leadership and management between 1995

    and 2012. Given this purpose, our methods of data analysis were limited to the use of descriptive

    statistics and graphing of trends. We analyzed the data with an eye towards examining the mean level

    of knowledge production across the sub-regions and individual societies that comprise Asia. We also

    sought to portray changes in publication patterns over time as well as the distribution of knowledge

     production in educational leadership and management across different regions of Asia.

    Results

    We begin by examining the volume of articles published from Asia since 1995, change in the rate

    of publication, and citation impact of this literature. Then we analyze the distribution of articles by

    kind, topic, and research method.

    General pattern of knowledge production

    Our search identified 478 articles, from and/or about Asia, in the database of 3,582 articles pub-

    lished in the eight journals between 1995 and the end of 2012 (see also Hallinger and Bryant,

    2013b). This represented 13%  of the full publication corpus and a mean rate of 27 (SD  ¼  11.6)articles per year over the 18-year period. Although, this is a relatively small portion of the full cor-

     pus published in these journals, we noted a steady increase in the number of Asian publications in

    recent years (see Figure 1). More specifically, almost half of the articles from Asia (45 %) had been

     published in the final third of the 18-year period.

    Given the vast size and diversity of Asia, we were also interested in how knowledge production

    was distributed across different parts of the continent. For example, would publications be evenly

    distributed across the continent or concentrated in particular sub-regions or societies? Analysis of 

     patterns of knowledge production by location could offer insight into the varying levels of research

    capacity and knowledge base development in the field across Asia.

    We found substantial variation in levels of publication from different parts of Asia (seeFigure 2). Indeed, Figure 2 depicts a bi-modal distribution of publication by region, with east

    Asia (235 articles, 49%) and west Asia (161 articles, 34%) accounting for most of the Asian

    research articles published in these journals. A small portion of the literature came from south

    Asia; no articles came from central Asia in this international literature.

    Within east and west Asia, we were surprised to find that knowledge production was highly con-

    centrated in two societies.8 Publications from Hong Kong (155 articles) and Israel (109 articles) rep-

    resented an astounding 55% of the total Asian literature. This was a significant but wholly unexpected 

    finding. In addition, we were surprised to find that no other societies in Asia had produced what could 

     be termed a ‘‘critical mass’’ of research articles in these journals, which publish the bulk of refereed 

    international articles in educational leadership and management. More specifically, the next most pro-ductive societies after Hong Kong and Israel were Singapore (27), China (26), and Turkey (22). Thus,

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   13

    13

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    10/23

    we observe that the publication volume was neither evenly distributed by regions nor societies in Asia

    (see also Hallinger and Bryant, 2013b).

    We also sought to gain perspective on the citation impact of this literature. By the end of 2012, the

    Asian corpus of 478 articles had yielded 6,886 citations. That represents an average of 382 citations per 

    year and 14.4 citations per article over the 18-year period. These are not large numbers when we con-sider the scope of articles, duration of the time period, and size of the higher education sector in Asia.

    7

    21

    13

    22 22

    25

    18  20 19

      21

    25  27

    25

    39   40 39

    53

    42

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    Year

       N  u  m   b  e  r  o   f

    7

    21

    13

    22 22

    25

    18  20 19

      21

    25  27

    25

    39   0 9

    2

    Figure 1. Annual volume of Asian educational leadership and management articles published in selected journals, 1995–2012.

    Figure 2. Volume of articles published by regions of Asia in selected journals, 1995–2012.Note: General Asia refers to articles about educational leadership and management in Asia, but not located ina particular country.

    14   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    14

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    11/23

    Measures of the citation distribution of articles revealed even more about the characteristics of 

    this corpus. Individual article citation counts ranged from 0 to 792. As shown in Figure 3, a small

    number of articles accounted for a disproportionately large number of the total citations. For exam-

     ple, two articles (Hallinger and Heck, 1998; Yu et al., 2002) alone accounted for almost 17% of the

    total citations. Conversely, a large number of articles had very few or no citations. The citation

    analysis indicates that relatively few of the published articles are having an impact on scholarship

    in the field. Taken together, this portrait of corpus volume and citation impact suggests that the‘Asian literature’ has yet to cohere into a influential knowledge base.

    Kinds of articles published in the Asian literature

    We next examined the kinds of the articles published in the Asian corpus. We classified articles as

    empirical, non-empirical, or research review papers. Among the 478 articles in the Asian database,

    the 346 empirical studies contained represented a substantial majority (72%). There were also 100

    non-empirical, theory-oriented papers (21%), and 32 review articles9 (7%). The category of non-

    empirical papers consisted of a combination of theoretical treatises and commentaries on policy

    issues.The data in Figure 4 further indicate that the rising volume of Asia articles published in recent

    years was largely due to an increase in the number of empirical studies. This could be a potentially

    encouraging finding since the development of a regionally-grounded literature depends upon gen-

    erating a sufficient body of empirical research (Hallinger, 2011b; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a;

    Ogawa et al., 2000). Of course, tapping that potential also depends upon the quality of theory and 

    method applied in the empirical studies (Bridges, 1982).

    The distribution of articles classified by region also yielded an interesting finding (see Figure 5).

    Scholars in east Asia (48%) and west Asia (41%) accounted for relatively equal portions of the

    empirical research pie. However, scholars in east Asia (56%) produced a much higher proportion

    of the theoretical literature than scholars in west (14%

    ) or south Asia. A similar trend emerged withrespect to the proportion of review articles in east (44%) and west Asia (22%).

    Figure 3. Distribution of the citation count of Asian articles published from 1995–2012.

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   15

    15

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    12/23

    Although the total number of publications is low in proportion to the size of the Asian higher 

    education enterprise, this pattern of results suggests that the region’s scholars have begun torespond to the earlier calls for more empirical research (CHeng, 1995). When compared with the

    volume of research produced 18 years ago, the recent increase in empirical publications does

    appear significant and substantial. This historical perspective suggests the gradual development

    of an empirically-based Asian literature, though, as noted above, knowledge production is not well

    distributed.

    Theoretical, commentary, and review papers are also essential to the development of a mature

    knowledge base (Bridges, 1982; Campbell, 1979; Donmoyer et al., 1995; Murphy et al., 2007;

    Ogawa et al., 2000). While the number of research reviews may appear low in relation to the other 

    kinds of articles, we suggest that this can be traced to two factors. First, historically, reviews of 

    research are published with less frequency than other kinds of articles (Hallinger, 2013b). Second,the density and scope of empirical research literature in a field must reach a critical mass before it

    Figure 4. Asian publications by types of articles, 1995–2012.

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    140

    160

    180

    West Asia South Asia East Asia General Asia

       N

       u   m    b   e   r   o    f   A   r      c    l   e   s

    Sub-region of Asia

    Empirical

    Non Empirical

    Research Review

    Figure 5. Regional variation in the kinds of articles published, 1995–2012.

    16   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    16

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    13/23

     becomes ready for systematic review (Hallinger, 2013b). Data presented in this study suggest that,

    until recently, it would have been premature to conduct systematic reviews of the Asian literature.

    Indeed, several of the review papers identified in our dataset actually focused on the broader inter-

    national literature, not Asian research per se.

    Focal topics of research on education leadership in Asia

    Analysis of the topics included in this Asian corpus also represented a focus of this review. Scho-

    lars reviewing the literature on educational leadership and management in other parts of the world 

    have analyzed trends in topical coverage at multiple points in the evolution of the field (e.g.

    Bridges, 1982; Campbell, 1979; Erickson, 1967, 1979; Hallinger, 2011a; Lipham, 1964; Murphy

    et al., 2007). Thus, we were interested to see what features of leading and managing schools haveattracted the interest of scholars in Asia.

    We classified topics into 20 categories (see Table 1). The six most common foci appearing in

    this literature were Leadership in K-12 Schools (14%); Change, School Effects, and Improvement

    (13%); Cultural Contexts (11%); Leadership and Management in Higher Education (9%); Organi-

    zational Behavior in Education (8%); and Governance (8%). Topics attracting the least attention

    within this literature included Gender; Marketing; Economics of Education; Parents and Commu-

    nity; Theory; and Emotions.

    We noted significant growth trends among articles on Leadership in K-12 Schools; Leadership

    and Management in Higher Education; and Change, School Effects, and Improvement in Educa-

    tion in recent years. For example, 60%

     of the 68 articles published on Leadership in K-12 Schoolsappeared since 2010. Similarly, almost 75% of the 34 articles on Leadership and Management in

    Table 1. Volume of publications by topic, 1995–2012.

    Topic No. of articles

    Leadership in K-12 Schools 68 (14.2%)

    Change, School Effects, and Improvement 60 (12.6%)Cultural Contexts 51 (10.7%)Leadership in Higher Education 45 (9.4%)Organizational Behavior (OB Variables and Climate/Culture) 40 (8.4%)Governance (e.g. SBM and Decentralization) 36 (7.5%)Human Resource Development 30 (6.3%)Curriculum and Teaching 23 (4.8%)Principals 21 (4.4%)Vice Principals and Middle Leadership 17 (3.6%)Values, Ethics, and Social Justice 12 (2.5%)ICT 12 (2.5%)Decision Making 11 (2.3%)Theory 8 (1.7%)Emotions (includes Motivation, Satisfaction, and Conflict) 8 (1.7%)Parents and Community 7 (1.5%)Economics of Education 6 (1.3%)Marketing (Marketing, PR, and Marketing) 6 (1.3%)Gender 1 (.2%)Others 16 (3.3%)

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   17

    17

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    14/23

    Higher Education were published during the last five years. Indeed, research on this topic did not

    show up at all until 2000. We suggest that this reflects the tremendous growth in Asia’s higher edu-

    cation sector in recent years. In contrast, the topic of Cultural Contexts demonstrated an opposite

    tendency. Seventy percent of the articles (51) focusing on Cultural Contexts were published 

     between 1995 and 1999.

    The distribution of topical focus by region also showed interesting patterns. Scholars in east

    Asia and west Asia showed similar levels of interest in the topics of Governance, Values, Ethics,Social Justice, and Parents and Community. However, scholars in east Asia produced a much

    higher proportion of the literature on Leadership in K-12 Schools, Cultural Contexts, Change,

    School Effects, and Improvement in Education, Vice Principals and Middle Leadership, and 

    Human Resource Development. In contrast, scholars in west Asia produced a higher proportion

    of articles on Organizational Behavior in Education and Decision Making.

    Research methods used in the Asian literature

    Our analysis also sought to track the research methods employed by scholars authoring empirical papers within this corpus. We classified empirical articles as employing quantitative, qualitative,

    or mixed methods of research. Overall, scholars studying educational leadership and management

    in Asia demonstrated a slight preference for employing qualitative methods. Among the 346

    empirical studies, 147 employed qualitative methods (43%), 129 relied on quantitative methods

    (37%), and 69 used mixed methods (20%).

    However, this trend has varied over time. The number of quantitative articles was highly

    skewed towards publication during the most recent five years (2008–2012). Indeed, over half 

    (54%) of the 129 quantitative articles appeared during this period. This suggests that researchers

    in Asia have begun using quantitative methods with increasing frequency in recent years.

    We also observed considerable variation across the regions. Scholars from east and west Asiaeach produced roughly equal proportions (about 45% each) of the 346 empirical articles. However,

    Figure 6. Distribution of articles by research methods, 1995–2012.

    18   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    18

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    15/23

    scholars in east Asia published more of the qualitative (50%) and mixed methods (51%) papers

    than their counterparts in west Asia.

    We then drilled down into the subset of quantitative publications in order to understand the

    kinds of statistical methods in use. As noted earlier in this paper, until recently scholarship in edu-

    cational leadership and management was characterized by the widespread use of relatively simple

    statistical analyses (Bridges, 1982; Haller, 1979; Hallinger, 2011a). Thus we were interested in the

    kinds of quantitative methods used by scholars in Asia.

    In order to facilitate this analysis, the data were coded into five different levels of statistical

    methods. This was based on a classification scheme previously used by Bridges (1982) and Hallinger 

    (2011a). The five levels were defined as follows.

    1.   Level 1: Descriptive. The use of numbers to represent central tendencies and/or variability

    of scores.

    2.   Level 2: Single causal factor–correlational . The examination of relationships or associations

     between two variables, one of which presumably co-varies with or influences the other.

    3.   Level 3: Single causal factor–correlational with controls. This entails the examination of the relationship between two variables while controlling for the influence of one or more

    other variables.

    4.   Level 4: Multiple factor . This involves probing the differential effects of multiple sources

    of influence on a particular variable.

    5.   Level 5: Advanced modeling . This comprises tests that are capable of exploring relation-

    ships among multiple independent and dependent variables in a manner that allows for the

    examination of moderating and/or mediating effects.

    Quite surprisingly, out of 198 empirical publications that had employed either quantitative or 

    mixed methods, Level 5 statistics ranked highest in frequency of use (see Table 2) These studiesaccounted for 28% of the empirical publications. Taken together, studies that used Levels 3, 4 and 

    5 statistical analyses represented 57% of the total sample of studies. This pattern of results com-

     pares quite favorably with trends derived from analyses of the North American literature earlier 

    reported by Bridges (1982) and Hallinger (2011a).

    Discussion

    This comparative analysis of the literature on educational leadership and management in Asia was

    undertaken in order to develop a broad picture of the evolving knowledge base in this region of the

    world. We reviewed a corpus comprising 478 articles published in eight international educationalleadership and management journals between 1995 and 2012. Analyses focused on describing

    Table 2. Quantitative publications analyzed by five statistical levels.

    Level Type of statistical analysis No. of articles (%)

    1 Descriptive 29 (14.6%)

    2 Single causal factor–correlational 41 (20.6%)3 Single causal factor–correlational with controls 29 (14.6%)4 Multiple factor 29 (14.6%)5 Advanced modeling 56 (28.1%)

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   19

    19

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    16/23

    trends in knowledge production for Asia as a whole as well as its sub-regions. In this final section

    of the paper we summarize the main findings, revisit limitations of the study, and examine the

    implications by placing the results in global and historical perspective.

    Summary of the findings

    The results of this review suggest that research on educational leadership and management in Asia

    remains in a relatively early stage of development. Despite recent increases in the rate of knowl-

    edge production from some societies in Asia, the overall volume of research was relatively low. In

    addition, and of some significance, the distribution of knowledge production was very uneven

    across the regions and societies of Asia. Scholars in east and west Asia have produced most of the

    Asian research published in the selected journals. Moreover, the bulk of research production was

    further concentrated in two societies, Hong Kong and Israel. This pattern of knowledge production

    actually limits our ability to speak of an ‘‘Asian literature.’’A ‘‘regionally-relevant knowledge base’’ depends upon empirical description that is both broad 

    and deep in coverage from the perspective of different sub-regions and societies. This is especially

    true in Asia where the political, economic, social, and cultural diversity of its societies mitigate

    against broad generalizations. Currently, as noted, the Asian literature is highly skewed by contri-

     butions from a small number of ‘‘outlier societies’’ (i.e. Hong Kong and Israel) that share simila-

    rities but also large differences with other Asian societies. These features further limit our 

    characterization of an ‘‘Asian literature’’ in educational leadership and management and frame the

    future challenges of stimulating both research capacity and knowledge production.

    Citation analyses revealed a relatively low level of scholarly impact for the Asian articles as a

    whole. Moreover, we found a highly skewed distribution of articles with a long tail consisting of  publications with minimal to no citation impact. These analyses of publication volume and impact

    cohere to form our conclusion of an immature knowledge base on educational leadership and man-

    agement in Asia. Indeed, these observations about the Asian literature mirror many features iden-

    tified in the North American literature 30 years ago (e.g. Boyan, 1981; Bridges, 1982; Campbell,

    1979; Erickson, 1979).

    The study also described characteristics of articles comprising the Asian literature. Empirical

    studies not only represented the largest portion of this literature, but also accounted for much of 

    the increasing volume of publications observed during the past six years. It was interesting to note

    that the ‘‘Asian knowledge base’’ showed a somewhat unexpected concentration on a relatively

    small number of topics. These included leadership; school change, effects and improvement;human resources; higher education management; and organizational behavior in education. We

    found that the concentration of topical foci contrasts somewhat with findings from reviews of the

    Western literature which historically featured a highly diffuse selection of topics (Bridges,

    1982; Campbell, 1979; Donmoyer et al., 1995; Erickson, 1967, 1979; Hallinger, 2011a; Heck 

    and Hallinger, 2005; Ogawa et al., 2000).

    Although authors demonstrated an overall preference for using qualitative research methods,

    the use of quantitative and mixed methods of research evidenced a marked increase during the last

    six years. Moreover, analysis of the subset of quantitative studies found that a larger than expected 

     percentage of scholars were employing advanced statistical methods. These findings further refine

    our picture of the Asian research context as broadly immature but with emerging capacity and  pockets of research excellence.

    20   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    20

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    17/23

    We also wish to place this particular pattern of findings in historical perspective. We earlier 

    noted that during the mid-1990s a group of Asian-based scholars had called for more concerted 

    scholarship on educational leadership and management in Asia. The current study used this period 

    as a time-based point of reference for beginning our exploration into the development of an Asian

    literature in educational leadership and management. Our data clearly indicate that scholars in Asiasubsequently intensified their efforts to undertake more research for international publication.

    Thus, we were able to identify an emergent corpus of work related to the description and analysis

    of educational leadership and management as practiced in Asian societies.

    Limitations

    In the context of these broad conclusions, we wish to revisit several limitations of the approach that

    was employed in this review. First, an implicit limitation followed from our decision to focus on

     patterns of knowledge production  rather than the  content of research findings  embedded in this

    corpus of articles. We did not attempt to characterize what has been learned from findings reported in studies conducted in Asia over the past 18 years. The current effort focused instead on describing

    the formal outlines of the knowledge base. This will be complemented in the future by a more

    in-depth analysis that critically examines substantive findings from the body of studies.

    Second, we made a conscious decision to limit our exploration of the Asian literature on edu-

    cational leadership and management to a specific set of international refereed journals. The pat-

    terns of knowledge production might look different if we had included papers authored in

    national language journals and graduate theses published in Asian societies. This frames an impor-

    tant caveat for the study. More specifically, the findings are delimited by our definition of the

    regional knowledge base as exemplified in these international refereed journals whose language

    of communication is English. Thus, we emphasize that this study only examined a portion of the ‘‘regional knowledge base.’’

    Implications

    The first implication of this study arises from the uneven representation of research on educational

    leadership in international journals from the societies comprising Asia. First, the research identi-

    fied two ‘‘positive outliers’’ with respect to knowledge production, Hong Kong and Israel. The vol-

    ume of international publication in these two societies has reached the ‘‘critical mass’’ needed for 

    conducting a synthesis of research findings. Thus, we suggest the timeliness of conducting substan-

    tive reviews of the research on educational leadership and management in these two societies.There is also an urgent need to conduct systematic reviews of research in those countries in

    which there may be a ‘‘hidden literature’’ in educational leadership and management. In nations

    such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, India, China, Taiwan, Pakistan, and Thailand 

    we have reason to believe that a substantial number of research papers have been written in indi-

    genous languages. This assertion is supported by a recent review of research on the principalship in

    China conducted by Walker et al. (2012). Their review uncovered a large Chinese language liter-

    ature that is largely inaccessible to an international audience. We suggest that similar ‘‘hidden lit-

    eratures’’ worthy of exploration may exist in other Asian countries.

    The goal of these reviews should be both to examine indigenous language and English language

    literature from Master and Doctoral theses as well as domestic and international journals. Scholarsundertaking these reviews should not only synthesize substantive findings, but also assess the

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   21

    21

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    18/23

    methodological quality of the ‘‘national literature’’ (See Walker et al. (2012) as well as Hallinger 

    (2013a, 2013b) for exemplars in conducting these reviews). As these reviews are published inter-

    nationally, the field will begin to develop a richer understanding of both the diversity and common-

    ality that characterize the practice of educational leadership and management globally.

    The trend of increased publication evidenced over the past decade is without doubt linked torecent growth of the higher education sector in Asia. The sharp increase in the volume of publication

    in the past five years mirrors regional higher education trends reported in the literature (e.g. Mok and 

    Cheung, 2011). Regional academics, from Israel and Turkey to India and China, are under increasing

     pressure to publish their research in ‘‘international refereed journals’’ (Altbach and Umakoshi, 2004;

    Marginson, 2007; Mok and Cheung, 2011). Thus, a perceived ‘‘need’’ for development of a verifi-

    able knowledge base in educational leadership and management (Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996,

    1998; Walker and Dimmock, 2000) is intersecting with an international trend supporting the devel-

    opment of capacity for knowledge production in Asian universities (Hallinger, 2011b; Hallinger and 

    Bryant, 2013a; Mok and Cheung, 2011). Hopefully, lessons learned from other parts of the world can

    help to inform strategic efforts to accelerate knowledge production in Asia (e.g. Donmoyer et al.,1995; Hallinger, 2011b; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a; Ogawa et al., 2000).

    One such lesson concerns the need for some degree of focus in research efforts. Even as we

    acknowledge the desirability of broad and balanced coverage in the selection of research topics

    and perspectives, it is important to recognize the importance of prioritizing the research agenda.

    Learning from past experience further supports the need for programmatic research. Progress in

    addressing important problems requires sustained focus on a set of issues by multiple scholars

    working in different contexts over time (Campbell, 1979; Hallinger, 2011b; Leithwood and Sun,

    2012; Murphy et al., 2007; Ogawa et al., 2000; Robinson et al., 2008).

    Similarly, intellectual progress depends upon the correct selection and application of research

    methods to high impact research questions (Bridges, 1982). Although the literature described inthis paper appears to evidence some desirable characteristics, the relatively sparse production of 

    articles also suggests that the capacity for conducting high quality research remains very uneven

    across the region. This implies the need for intra- as well as inter-regional cooperation aimed at

    capacity building in research (see Hallinger, 2011b; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a).

    This study was undertaken in the context of growing intra-regional cooperation on issues of 

    higher education development in Asia (e.g. Altbach, 2010; Altbach and Umakoshi, 2004; Gooch,

    2012). Although there is little short-term prospect of Asian nations launching their own version of 

    the  Bologna Process  in higher education, rising levels of competition and cooperation will con-

    tinue to describe the future higher education landscape in this region of the world. With this in

    mind, the current study highlights mutually reinforcing trends in higher education capacity devel-opment and knowledge production.

    Funding

    The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or 

     publication of this article: The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support of the Research Grant

    Council (RGC) of Hong Kong for its support through the General Research Fund (GRF 841512).

    Acknowledgments

    The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Li Jia, Liu Po Yee and Nguyen Thi Thinh for their assis-tance in data collection, extraction and analysis.

    22   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    22

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    19/23

    Notes

    1. Implicit acknowledgement of this shift can be observed in the titles of journals launched during different

    eras. The earliest journals in this field launched during the 1960s all featured ‘‘administration’’ in their 

    titles (e.g. Journal of Educational Administration, Educational Administration Quarterly, Administrators’

     Notebook ). Relevant journals launched or re-titled during the past 15 years have featured or included lead-

    ership and/or management in their titles (e.g. School Leadership and Management , Leadership and Policy

    in Schools, Journal of School leadership, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Inter-

    national Journal of School Leadership,  Leading and Managing ).

    2. It should be noted that Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2005) review of research on transformational school lead-

    ership employed essentially the same set of journals as the basis for their data collection (i.e. seven of the

    same journals out of eight).

    3. The h-index was proposed by JE Hirsch in his paper ‘‘An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research

    output’’, arXiv: physics/0508025 v5 29 Sep 2005. It is defined as follows: A scientist has index  h if  h of his/

    her  Np papers have at least h  citations each, and the other ( Np-h) papers have no more than h  citations each.

    4. This is based on analysis using the Publish or Perish tool on May 19, 2012.5. We considered two other well known journals: Leading and Managing  and  Journal of School Leadership.

    However, the former had a much lower  h-index (15), and the latter failed to meet our criterion of having a

    mission of including international research.

    6. It should be noted that, unlike in the USA, where most doctoral dissertations are stored in digital format by

    UMI and made available through Proquest, in Asia such systems are not yet in place. Thus, doctoral dis-

    sertations are generally stored in print format at single universities. This makes them largely inaccessible

    for the purposes of international research.

    7. It should be noted that, given the diverse foci of our research questions, we decided to include all studies

    that either investigated  about  educational leadership and management in these societies  or  were written

    about educational issues more generally but produced by scholars operating within the region.8. Note that these figures include articles about these societies as well as articles from these societies.

    9. It should be noted that we used a loose definition for review articles. These included formal reviews of 

    research as well as articles that examined an issue solely through reference to the literature but without

    a systematic review methodology.

    References

    Altbach PG (Ed.) (2010)  Leadership For World-Class Universities: Challenges For Developing Countries.

     New York and London: Routledge.

    Altbach P and Umakoshi T (2004)  Asian Universities: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Chal-lenges. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

    Bajunid IA (1996) Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational management: The

    evolving Malaysian experience.  Journal of Educational Administration  34(5): 50–73.

    Belchetz D and Leithwood K (2007) Successful leadership: Does context matter and if so, how? In: Day C and 

    Leithwood K (Eds)  Successful Principal Leadership In Times Of Change: An International Perspective.

    Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, pp. 11–137.

    Bossert S, Dwyer D, Rowan B and Lee G (1982) The instructional management role of the principal.  Edu-

    cational Administration Quarterly  18(3): 34–64.

    Boyan NJ (1968) Problems and issues of knowledge production and utilization. In: Eidell TL and Kitchel JM

    (Eds) Knowledge Production and Utilization in Educational Administration. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press, pp. 21–36.

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   23

    23

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    20/23

    Boyan NJ (1981) Follow the leader: Commentary on research in educational administration.  Educational 

     Researcher  10(2): 6–13, 21.

    Bridges E (1967) Instructional leadership: A concept re-examined.   Journal of Educational Administration

    5(2): 136–147.

    Bridges E (1977) The nature of leadership. In: Cunningham L, Hack W and Nystrand R (Eds)  Educational  Administration: The Developing Decades. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, pp. 202–230.

    Bridges E (1982) Research on the school administrator: The state-of-the-art, 1967–1980. Educational Admin-

    istration Quarterly 18(3): 12–33.

    Briner C and Campbell RF (1964) The science of administration.  Review of Educational Research  34(4):

    485–492.

    Bush T (2006)  Theories of Educational Leadership and Management . London: SAGE Publications.

    Bush T and Qiang HY (2002) Leadership and culture in Chinese education. In: Walker A and Dimmock C

    (Eds)  School Leadership and Administration: Adopting a Cultural Perspective. London: Routledge

    Falmer. pp. 173–186.

    Campbell RF (1979) A critique of the Educational Administration Quarterly.   Educational AdministrationQuarterly 15(3): 1–19.

    Campbell RF and Faber C (1961) Administrative behavior: Theory and research.  Review of Educational 

     Research 31(4): 353–367.

    Cheng KM (1995) The neglected dimension: Cultural comparison in educational administration. In: Wong

    KC and Cheng KM (Eds) Educational Leadership and Change. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press,

     pp. 87–102.

    Cherkowski S, Currie R and Hilton S (2012) Who should rank our journals   . . .  and based on what? Journal of  

     Educational Administration 50(2): 206–230.

    Cooper HM and Hedges L (2009) The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Day C, Sammons P, Leithwood K, Hopkins D, Harris A, Gu Q and Brown E (2010)  Ten Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. Nottingham, UK: The National College for School Leadership.

    Dimmock C (2000) Globalisation and societal culture: Redefining schooling and school leadership in the

    twenty-first century.  Compare  30(3): 1–6.

    Dimmock C and Walker A (2005)   Educational Leadership: Culture and Diversity. London: SAGE

    Publications.

    Donmoyer R, Imber M and Scheurich J (1995)  The Knowledge Base in Educational Administration: Multiple

     Perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Erickson DA (1967) The school administrator.  Review of Educational Research  37(4): 417–432.

    Erickson DA (1979) Research on educational administration: The state-of-the-art.  Educational Researcher 

    8(3): 9–14.Getzels J, Lipham J and Campbell R (1968)  Educational Administration as a Social Process. New York:

    Harper & Row.

    Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P and Trow M (1994)  The New Production of  

    knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE

    Publications.

    Goldring E, Huff J, May H and Camburn E (2008) School context and individual characteristics: What influ-

    ences principal practice?  Journal of Educational Administration  46(3): 332–352.

    Gooch L (2012) ASEAN nations put education front and center.  New York Times,  October  31, 7.

    Gough D (2007) Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence.

     Research Papers in Education 22(2): 213–228.Griffiths DE (1959)  Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    24   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    24

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    21/23

    Griffiths DE (1979) Intellectual turmoil in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly

    15(3): 43–65.

    Gronn P (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis.  Leadership Quarterly  13: 423–451.

    Haller E (1979) Questionnaires and the dissertation in educational administration.  Educational Administra-

    tion Quarterly  15(1): 47–66.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 P (2011b) Developing a knowledge base for educational leadership and management in East Asia.

    School Leadership and Management  31(4): 305–320.

    Hallinger P (2013a) A conceptual framework for reviews of research in educational leadership and manage-

    ment. Journal of Educational Administration  51(2): 126–149.

    Hallinger P (2013b) Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership: An empirical analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, Published online DOI: 10.1177/0013161X13506594.

    Hallinger P (2014) Riding the tiger of world university rankings in East Asia: Where are we heading?

     International Journal of Education Management   29(2): 230–245.

    Hallinger P andBryant DA (2013a) Accelerating knowledge production on educationalleadershipandmanagement

    in East Asia: A strategic analysis. School Leadership and Management . DOI:10.1080/13632434.2013.773884.

    Hallinger P and Bryant DA (2013b) Review of research publications on educational leadership and manage-

    ment in Asia: A comparative analysis of three regions.   Oxford Review of Education, DOI:10.1080/

    03054985.2013.803961.

    Hallinger P and Heck RH (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empiri-

    cal research, 1980–1995.  Educational Administration Quarterly  32(1): 5–44.Hallinger P and Heck RH (1998) Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995.

    School Effectiveness and School Improvement  9(2): 157–191.

    Hallinger P and Leithwood K (1994) Exploring the impact of principal leadership.  School Effectiveness and 

    School Improvement  5(3): 206–218.

    Hallinger P and Leithwood K.(1996) Culture and educational administration.  Journal of Educational Admin-

    istration 34(5): 4–11.

    Hallinger P and Leithwood K (1998) Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on leadership.  Peabody

     Journal of Education 73(2): 126–151.

    Hallinger P, Walker AD and Bajunid IA (2005) Educational leadership in East Asia: Implications for educa-

    tion in a global society.  UCEA Review  45(1): 1–4.Harzing AW (2007) Publish or perish (Computer software).  Available from: www.harzing.com.

    Hass E, Wilson G, Cobb C, Hyle A and Kearney K (2007) Assessing influence on the field: An analysis of cita-

    tions to the Educational Administration Quarterly.  Educational Administration Quarterly 43(4): 494–513.

    Heck RH and Hallinger P (2005) The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field 

    stand today?  Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership  33: 9–244.

    Hien PD (2010) A comparative study of research capabilities of East Asian countries and implications for 

    Vietnam. Higher Education  60: 615–625.

    Kiley LA (1973)  Toward a systematic knowledge production system in educational administration. Unpub-

    lished PhD dissertation, Cornell University,Ithaca, NY.

    Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2005) A review of transformational school leadership research, 1996–2005.  Lead-ership and Policy in Schools  4(3): 177–199.

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   25

    25

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://www.harzing.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://www.harzing.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    22/23

    Leithwood K and Montgomery D (1982) The role of the elementary principal in program improvement.

     Review of Educational Research 52(3): 309–339.

    Leithwood K and Sun JP (2012) The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic

    review of unpublished research.  Educational Administration Quarterly  published online DOI: 10.1177/

    0013161X11436268.Leithwood K, Begley P and Cousins B (1990) The nature, causes and consequences of principals’ practices:

    An agenda for future research.  Journal of Educational Administration  28(4): 5–31.

    Leithwood K, Harris A and Hopkins D (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership.  School 

     Leadership and Management  28(1): 27–42.

    Light RJ and Pillemer DB (1984) Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

    University Press.

    Lipham J (1964) Organizational character of education: Administrative behavior.   Review of Educational 

     Research 34(4): 435–454.

    MacBeath J and Cheng YC (2008)   Leadership for Learning: International Perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense

    Publishers.March J (1978) The American public school administrator: A short analysis. School Review 86(2): 217–250.

    Marginson S (2007) To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education.  Journal of   

    Studies in International Education  11(3/4): 306–329.

    Mok KH and Cheung ABL (2011) Global aspirations and strategizing for world-class status: New form of 

     politics in higher education governance in Hong Kong.  Journal of Higher Education Policy and Manage-

    ment  33(3): 231–251.

    Moore PA (1974) Towards a programmatic knowledge production system in educational administration: The

     professor’s view. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

    Mulford B and Silins H (2003) Leadership for organizational learning and improved student outcomes – What

    do we know?  Cambridge Journal of Education  33(2): 175–195.Murphy J, Hallinger P and Mitman A (1983) Problems with research on educational leadership: Issues to be

    addressed. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis  5(3): 297–306.

    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.

    Ogawa RE, Goldring E and Conley S (2000) Organizing the field to improve research on educational admin-

    istration. Educational Administration Quarterly  36(3): 340–357.

    Richardson JW and McLeod S (2009) Where should educational leadership authors publish to get noticed by

    the top journals in the discipline?  Educational Administration Quarterly 45(4): 631–639.

    Robinson V, Lloyd C and Rowe K (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of thedifferential effects of leadership types.  Educational Administration Quarterly  44(5): 564–588.

    Southworth G (2002) Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence.  School Lead-

    ership and Management  22(1): 73–92.

    van Raan AFJ (1997) Science as an international enterprise.  Science and Public Policy  24(5): 290–300.

    Walker A and Dimmock C (2000) Insights into educational administration: The need for a comparative cross-

    cultural perspective.  Asia-Pacific Journal of Education  20(2): 11–22.

    Walker A 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, the Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 67–204.

    Walker AD, Hu R and Qian HY (2012) Principal leadership in Chinese context: An initial review.  School  Effectiveness and School Improvement  23(4): 369–399.

    26   Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)

    26

     at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 5, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from 

    http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/

  • 8/20/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2015 Hallinger 5 27

    23/23

    Witziers B, Bosker R and Kruger M (2003) Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive

    search for an association.  Educational Administration Quarterly  34(3): 398–425.

    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.

    Author biographies

    Philip Hallinger  is Professor of Education Management at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.

    He received his doctorate from Stanford University and conducts research on issues concerning

    educational leadership, leadership development, and education reform.

    Dr Junjun Chen  is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Policy and Leader-

    ship, and a Research Associate in the Asia Pacific Center for Leadership and Change at the Hong

    Kong Institute of Education. Her research focuses on teacher development and leadership.

    Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia   27

    27