4.6 Review

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

期刊

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 89, 期 3, 页码 335-369

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.3102/0034654319830380

关键词

review of research; educational administration; educational leadership; science mapping; bibliometric review; knowledge production

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据