A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to reveal the extent to which different leadership models in education are studied, including the change in the trends of research on each model over time, the most prominent scholars working on each model, and the countries in which the articles are based. The analysis of the related literature was conducted by first employing a bibliometric analysis of the research and review papers indexed in the Web of Science database between 1980 and 2014. Then, a more in-depth analysis of selected papers was done using the content analysis method. The results showed that there has been increasing interest in leadership models in educational research over time. Distributed leadership, instructional leadership, teacher leadership, and transformational leadership are the most studied leadership models in educational research. It was also found that related research increasingly focuses on the effects of leaders on organizational behaviors/conditions and on student achievement. Accordingly, usage of quantitative methodology has significantly increased during the last decade. Possible reasons for these changes, implications, and recommendations for future research are also discussed.

A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003–2017)

“…Thirdly, this review considers articles written in English only and therefore potentially missed a hidden literature concerning teacher leadership written in other languages. This potential 'missing literature' is also recognised in other international reviews (e.g., Gumus et al, 2018).…”

“…Finally, the authors decided to include only SSCI/Scopus-indexed journal articles that have been examined through a clear external review process. This selection practice is also aligned with the recent reviews in the field of educational leadership (e.g., Gumus et al, 2018;Hallinger and Kovačević, 2019). A manual check of the websites of journals, the Web of Science, and Scopus database was conducted to see which of these 293 publications were Scopus or SSCI -indexed articles.…”

“…Firstly, that while the volume of quantitative and mixed-methods studies have slightly increased across fifteen years, qualitative research continues to be dominant in the field of teacher leadership. The preference for a qualitative approach to researching different types of teacher leadership, and leadership more generally, has been recognised in previous reviews and syntheses of the literature and noted as a limitation in this field of study (e.g., Gumus et al, 2018;Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Secondly, that more quantitative and cross-national…”

The research on educational leadership and management in the Arab world since the 1990s: A systematic review

“…Most of the correlative articles examined gender, age and career experience, but found mostly insignificant relationships between them and the researched phenomenon. Thus, the increased interest in examining the effects of leadership on educational outcomes, based on advanced statistical methods and relevant data sets (Gumus, Bellibas, Esen & Gumus, 2016), has not yet penetrated the research on Arab EDLM. The qualitative studies have been characterised by a small number of participants and most researchers used open-ended questionnaires in faceto face-interviews rather than a semi-structured ones that are more prevalent in this kind of methodological paradigm nowadays (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).…”

Tackling sustainability

“…Sustainability is therefore connected to the meanings attributed to the different types of interactions and how those meanings shape the individual's PD, boosting it for future interactions in a continuous loop movement. Therefore, the ii) learning environment, including the PD processes created by the leader, and the impact (mostly emotional) that they have on the led are crucial, as leadership involves directing and influencing others, in the sense of motivating and empowering them to achieve both personal and institutions' aims (Antunes & Silva, 2015;Gumus, Bellibas & Esen, 2016).…”