Content uploaded by Sedat Gümüş
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sedat Gümüş on Sep 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A systematic review of
educational leadership and
management research in Turkey
Content analysis of topics, conceptual
models, and methods
Mehmet Şükrü Bellibaş
Department of Educational Administration, College of Education,
Adıyaman University, Adıyaman, Turkey, and
Sedat Gümüş
Department of Educational Sociology, Danish School of Education,
Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Abstract
Purpose –While the current knowledge in the field of educational leadership and management (EDLM) has been
primarily based on research produced in English-speaking Western societies, there have been significant efforts
by other societies to contribute to the knowledge production, especially during the past decade. The purpose of
this paper is to identify the contribution of Turkey to the international EDLM literature by investigating the
topical focus, conceptual frameworks and research designs of papers published by EDLM scholars from Turkey.
Design/methodology/approach –Descriptive content analysis method was employed to examine 315
empirical, review, conceptual and commentary papers published by Turkish scholars in core educational
administration and Web of Science journals. The time period of the review left open-ended. However, in
practical terms, it begins in the year 1994 when the first article from Turkey was published in any of the
selected sources and ends at the end of 2018. Information relevant to the research was extracted from each
article and was coded to facilitate quantitative analysis. Using Excel software, descriptive statistics including
frequencies and percentages were provided for each research question.
Findings –Results show that Turkish EDLM scholars mostly rely on survey based quantitative research
approach, employing advanced statistical techniques in the analysis of the data. However, mixed method and
qualitative studies are relatively less common. Organizational behavior, school leadership and emotions stand
out as most frequently used topics, while Turkish scholars are not interested in analyzing the educational
outcomes such as student achievement and school improvement. Consistent with the findings related to
topical foci, a large number of those who were interested in correlational studies examined the relationship
between leadership roles and organizational behaviors.
Research limitations/implications –The data set only included journal articles and excluded conference
proceedings, books and theses/dissertations. Nevertheless, the authors believe this review adds significantly to
previous reviews of local EDLM journals conducted by Turkish scholars. The authors concluded that the Turkish
scholars should direct their future research to exploring and better understanding the practices of Turkish
principals in schools by: diversifying their research topics; incorporating more qualitative and mixed-method
designs; and taking into account specific features of the culture and educational system in Turkey.
Practical implications –Based on the current higher education context, reducing scholars’teaching load,
diversifying research funding opportunities, and modifying access to tenure tracks seem necessary
interventions to support EDLM research with strong ties to practice and to the sociocultural context. In addition,
policy changes aiming professionalization of administrative positions and establishing some forms of formal
training for school principalship are needed. Such changes can help transfer the knowledge produced by the
Turkish EDLM researchers to the practice and provide solutions to problems related to school administration.
Originality/value –This paper will add to recent effort to identify how a developing nation outside Western
perspective approaches the field, and contributes to the global knowledge base.
Keywords Turkey, Educational administration, Educational leadership, Organizational behaviour,
Systematic review, Research design
Paper type Research paper Journal of Educational
Administration
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-01-2019-0004
Received 12 January 2019
Revised 6 April 2019
23 June 2019
Accepted 26 June 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
The authors would like to thank Prof. Philip Hallinger for his contribution to data identification process
and for his insightful feedback on the earlier version of the paper.
A systematic
review of
educational
leadership
Educational leadership and management (EDLM) emerged as an academic field at the end of the
nineteenth century, based primarily on the exchange of school administrators’practical
experiences. Production of knowledge within the field of EDLM accelerated with the emergence
of the theory movement in the 1950s and the field has since gradually strengthened as an applied
field of study (Eidel and Kitchel, 1968; Oplatka and Arar, 2016). Since the emergence of EDLM as
an independent discipline, studies conducted by English-speaking Western societies have
dominated the knowledge base. North America and the UK have played a crucial role in the
development of the field and the production of related knowledge. However, significant efforts by
researchers in non-Western societies have introduced a more international perspective, especially
since the turn of the millennium (Hallinger, 2019; Walker and Dimmock, 2002).
Several recent review studies have indicated that Turkey is one of the few non-Western
countries to have significantly contributed to the international EDLM literature (Gümüş
et al., 2018; Hallinger and Chen, 2015; Mertkan et al., 2017). Therefore, we believe that a
review of Turkish EDLM literature can offer vital insights into the strengths and
weaknesses of this research, which can help channel future efforts by EDLM scholars, both
from Turkey and other countries where EDLM is emerging as a field of research, in the right
direction. Furthermore, such a review serves an important purpose in highlighting to an
international audience the contribution of a non-Western society at a time when there is an
emphasis on developing an international EDLM knowledge base.
The present study employed tools of systematic research review (Cooper and Hedges,
2009) to identify and synthesize features of the Turkish EDLM literature. This review is
primarily interested in providing a descriptive profile of the educational administration
research in Turkey, rather than detailed synthesis of substantive research findings. The
authors therefore compiled a comprehensive database of 315 journal articles published
between 1994 and 2018. The review addressed the following research questions:
RQ1. Which research topics predominate in Turkish EDLM research?
RQ2. How are these topical foci organized in terms of conceptual models?
RQ3. What is the distribution of methods, statistical analyses, and data collection tools
used in the relevant research?
The Turkish EDLM context
Located at the crossroads of Asia, Europe and the Middle East, Turkey offers a unique and
rich cultural, social, and religious context. Despite this diversity, Turkey has adopted a
highly centralized and hierarchical education system (Çelik et al., 2017). Therefore, the
Ministry of National Education (MoNE) has borne the primary responsibility for the
assignment and development of school administrators. Over the years, MoNE’s policies in
this area have received considerable criticism concerning the lack of consistency over time
and the paucity of the requirements for those in administrative positions to complete
any formal training, certification or relevant degree (Korkmaz, 2005). In general, school
administration is not seen as a profession in Turkey, but is rather perceived as a temporary
assignment for teachers (Beycioğlu et al., 2018).
Framing school principalship as a temporary position that all teachers can perform without
any additional formal training has led to low demand for EDLM degree programs and therefore
limits the influence of universities on the professional development and training of principals.
This situation, however, has not prevented the development of EDLM as a research field in
Turkey. Several Turkish scholars, most of who had some degree of graduate-level education at
universities in North America, introduced the field of EDLM to Turkey in the 1950s and 1960s.
Therefore, the impact of the “theory movement”in the USA at that time reinforced the positivist
paradigm among Turkish EDLM scholars (Balcı, 2008; Şimşek, 1997). Since then, Turkish
JEA
EDLM research has largely been concerned with validating the research findings of Western
scholars in a Turkish context, instead of producing culture- and context-specific knowledge.
In general, EDLM programs at universities have predominantly been research-based and
practice-oriented approaches have been mostly missing (Sezgin et al., 2011). Accordingly, in
contrast to many Western countries, clinical professor positions have not been available
(Gök, 2014). The process characterizing the development of EDLM as a field in Turkey and
the universities’lack of a role in the preparation of school administrators have limited the
links between EDLM scholars and local school leadership practitioners. This lack of a
connection between research and practice has been exacerbated by a number of other
factors, including a tenure track that prioritizes quantity of academic publications, high
teaching loads at the undergraduate level, and insufficient funding to support long-term and
practice-based EDLM research (Örücü and Simsek, 2011).
Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework for this review was developed based on existing review studies in the
field of EDLM. While the earlier review studies mostly focused on Western countries (Bridges,
1982; Erickson, 1979; Hall and Southworth, 1997), recent reviews have also paid considerable
attentiontonon-Westerncontexts(BushandGlover, 2016; Hallinger and Chen, 2015; Mertkan
et al., 2017; Oplatka and Arar, 2017). Three approaches typify these review studies, with some
studies combining different approaches. Focusing on the big picture, the first type sets out to
reveal the volume, citations, geographical distribution, etc. of the knowledge base (Gümüşet al.,
2019; Hallinger and Kovačević, 2019; Wang and Bowers, 2016). The second type, meanwhile,
tries to identify the overall content of existing studies by revealing their topical foci,
methodological approaches, conceptual models, etc. (Aypay et al., 2010; Castillo and Hallinger,
2018; Ogawa et al., 2000). The final type of review of the EDLM research conducts in-depth
synthesis of the findings of existing studies using either a qualitative or a quantitative approach
(Boyce and Bowers, 2018; Oplatka and Arar, 2017; Robinson et al., 2008).
For this study, we developed a conceptual framework reflecting the second type of
review mentioned above. As seen in Figure 1, our framework consists of three main
dimensions: topical foci, conceptual model and methodology. Topical foci refer to the main
topics/subjects addressed in the reviewed studies. In order to create a list of topics, we first
The Overall Contents of EDLM
Research in Turkey
Methodology
Conceptual
Model
Topical Foci
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
for the review of
EDLM research in
Turkey
A systematic
review of
educational
leadership
identified those that commonly feature in other recent reviews of EDLM research, such as
leadership, organizational behaviors, emotions, etc. By adding more topics as necessary in
an iterative process, the list of topics was finalized at the end of the analyses.
The second dimension of our framework concerns the conceptual models used in the
reviewed studies. To this end, we used four main models developed by Hallinger (2018)
based on the past five decades of EDLM research (see Figure 2). The first model, labeled A,
refers to either contextual antecedents, such as political, cultural, and organizational
features of the educational environment, or personal antecedents of leaders, such as gender,
education and experience. Model B refers to leadership and managerial roles and practices,
while model C focuses on different organizational dimensions, such as school cultures,
teacher work attitudes and teaching. Finally, the fourth model, labeled D, refers to school
outcomes, such as student achievement, school improvement and school effectiveness.
Based on this categorization, the model AB, for instance, would correspond to a paper that
examines the relationship between context variables/principal characteristics and
leadership/administration, while model BCD would represent studies linking leadership
and management to school outcomes with one or more organizational dimensions.
The final dimension of our conceptual framework is methodology, referring to the
methodological approaches and tools used in empirical studies. This dimension includes three
sub-dimensions; methodological approach (qualitative, quantitative and mix-method), data
collection tools (surveys, secondary data, interviews, observations, etc.) and statistical levels.
In order to classify the statistical tests used in quantitative or mixed-method articles, we
employed a four-level rubric first proposed by Bridges (1982) in his review of American EDLM
literature. Level 1 statistics include descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, standard deviation). Level 2
statistics use single causal factor/correlational statistics (e.g. t-test, Pearson’scorrelation).
Level 3 statistics include single causal factor/correlational statistics with controls (e.g. one-way
ANOVA). Finally, Level 4 statistics contain multiple-factor and advanced modeling
(e.g. MANOVA, multiple regression, HLM, SEM).
Method
The present paper follows the steps for conducting systematic reviews within the field of
EDLM developed by Hallinger (2013). According to this framework, a systematic review
study starts by specifying the central topics of interest, research questions and goals; it then
draws upon a conceptual perspective to identify, select, evaluate and interpret relevant
publications; it clarifies the sources of the data used and the way these data are analyzed
and synthesized; and, finally, it discusses findings, limitations and implications.
Societal Context
Personal
Characteristics
(gender, prep,
Personality) Leadership
Fiscal, Facility,
Processes,
Resources
Quality
School Culture
CLT, People
School
Performance
Management
School Context
(Primary/secondary, urban/rural, public/private, challenging)
ABCD
A
A
(Political, institutional, cultural)
Figure 2.
Conceptual framework
for conceptual models
used in Turkish
EDLM research
JEA
Identification of sources
In order to identify the sources for the review, we decided to use eight core international
EDLM journals including Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ), Educational
Management Administration and Leadership (EMAL), International Journal of Educational
Management (IJEM), International Journal of Leadership in Education (IJLE), Journal of
Educational Administration (JEA), Leadership and Policy in Schools (LPS), School
Effectiveness and School Improvement (SESI), and School Leadership and Management
(SLAM), frequently used in previous reviews of EDLM research (Hammad and Hallinger,
2017; Cherkowski et al., 2012; Oplatka and Arar, 2017), as well as the Web of Science (WoS)
database. The time period of the review left open-ended. However, in practical terms, it
begins in the year 1994 when the first article from Turkey was published in any of the
selected sources and ends at the end of 2018. We tried several search strings for the WoS
database before settling on the below string as it provided the most representative data set:
TI ¼(administration OR management OR leader* OR policy OR governance OR reform OR finance
OR supervision OR inspection OR principal* OR administrator* OR manager* OR supervisor* OR
inspector* OR “school change”OR “school effect*“OR “school improvement”OR organization* OR
superintendent* OR district) AND CU ¼Turkey (Refined by: Web of Science Categories:
(Education and Educational Research) And Document Types: (Article OR Review) Timespan:
1900-2018. Indexes: SSCI).
This search produced a total of 424 research and review articles. All of the articles were
carefully screened by two researchers to eliminate those not fitting the field. Benefiting from
the findings of other recent EDLM reviews (e.g. Hallinger, 2018; Oplatka and Arar, 2017),
articles outside the field of EDLM research and primarily concerned with a variety of other
disciplines, such as teacher education and school counseling, were identified and excluded
from the data set. Consequently, the number of articles in the data set drawn from the WoS
database was reduced to 275. We then reviewed the titles and abstracts for each volume of
the eight core journals in order to identify articles authored/co-authored by scholars from
Turkey during the same period. This process identified 50 articles. After combining the two
data sets, ten overlapping articles were eliminated, resulting in a total of 315 articles that
were included in the review.
Data extraction
In the data extraction step, information relevant to our research questions was extracted
from each of the 315 articles. The data were coded to facilitate quantitative analysis (Gough,
2007) and compiled in a spreadsheet. For example, in the column under “research method,”
quantitative studies were coded as 1, qualitative as 2 and mixed methods as 3. Two
researchers reviewed the content of every article and created separate lists of codes. These
two lists were then compared and differences were discussed. In case of disagreement
between the two researchers, the opinions of experts in the field were sought in order to
determine the best category for each article prior to data analysis.
Data analysis
Data analysis was carried out using Excel software. Descriptive statistics, including
frequencies and percentages, were provided for each research question. Data analysis
sought to identify modal trends, as well as variability in patterns of knowledge production
for the corpus of studies from this emerging region. Although this study was limited to
Turkey, we also selectively benchmarked findings identified in this review against trends
identified on comparable variables (e.g. topics, methods) in other recent reviews of the
EDLM literature around the world.
A systematic
review of
educational
leadership
Results
In this section of the paper, we present our findings in relation to each of the research
questions posed at the outset.
Topical distribution in the Turkish EDLM literature
We analyzed the content of each paper in order to gain more detailed information about the
topics of research that have attracted the interest of Turkish EDLM scholars. It should be
noted that articles typically focused on more than one category of topic, giving a sum
greater than 315.
Data presented in Table I show that the most frequently studied topics among Turkish
scholars fall into the category of organizational behavior (n¼114). This broad category
included discrete topics such as organizational citizenship (Göktürk, 2011; Yılmaz and Taşdan,
2009), organizational commitment (Liu and Bellibaş, 2018; Sezgin, 2009), organizational justice
(Aydın and Karaman-Kepenekci, 2008; Titrek, 2010), organizational trust (Akın, 2015),
organizational culture (İpek, 2010; Yaman, 2010), organizational health (Cemaloğlu, 2011; Güçlü
et al., 2014) and teacher self-efficacy (Koşar, 2015; Duyar et al., 2013).
Leadership has also been a frequent topic of study in a Turkish context (n¼87). Studies
in this category have focused on one or more of a variety of different leadership models/
styles. These include instructional leadership (Kalman and Arslan, 2016; Şişman, 2016),
distributed/shared leadership (Kondakçıet al., 2016; Kösterelioğlu, 2017), transformational
leadership (Balyer and Özcan, 2012; Sağnak, 2010), teacher leadership (Kılınç, 2014; Kurt,
2016), academic leadership (Bellibaşet al., 2016; Hacıfazlıoğlu, 2010) and servant leadership
(Cerit, 2010; Ekinci, 2015). We found that many of the studies related to leadership or
Topic Count
Organizational behavior (OB variables, efficacy, trust, climate/culture) 114
Principals 95
Leadership 87
Emotions (motivation, satisfaction, depression, burnout, stress, etc.) 40
Higher education 37
Vice principals 33
School management and administration roles and practices 33
Human Resources (preparation, selection, learning organization, etc.) 30
Teacher evaluation and supervision 24
Gender 17
Change, reform 17
Values and ethics 16
ICT 16
School effects, improvement, outcomes 12
Social justice and diversity 10
Governance (SBM, decentralization, strategic planning, accountability, etc.) 9
Cultural contexts 6
Curriculum and teaching 7
Parents, community 7
Educational policy 7
Decision making 4
School districts 3
Marketing (PR, services, image, etc.) 3
Quality 2
Theory 2
Economics of education/finance 2
Table I.
Distribution of
Turkish EDLM
articles by topics
JEA
organizational behavior also focused on school principals (n¼95), while some studies either
included vice principals alongside principals or focused solely on the former (n¼33).
Organizational behavior, school principalship, and leadership were followed by several
other prevalent topics, including emotions (Aydınet al., 2011), higher education (Akbulut
et al., 2015; Kurt et al., 2017; Uslu and Arslan, 2018), and school administration roles and
practices (Ağaoğlu et al., 2012; Memduhoğlu, 2015; Tanrıöğen and Savcı, 2011). Human
resources (Özgan, 2013; Özcan and Bakioğlu, 2010), values and ethics (Baloğlu, 2012; Polat,
2012) and teacher evaluation/supervision (Ilgan et al., 2015; Yavuz, 2010) were the other
most frequently studied topics in Turkish EDLM research. Some underrepresented topics
included social justice and diversity (Arar et al., 2017; Özdemir, 2017), cultural contexts
(Titrek, 2010), parents and community (Yolcu, 2011) and educational policy (Nir et al., 2018;
Akcaoğlu et al., 2015).
Conceptual models
While investigating the conceptual models, we focused solely on empirical and meta-
analysis studies, which constitute the overwhelming majority of our data set (n¼303).
According to Figure 3, the most common approach used in the selected studies is the model
C(n¼79). Model C studies focus on different organizational dimensions with the potential
to mediate the relationship between school leadership/administration and school
performance, such as organizational commitment (Cerit, 2010; Sezgin, 2009),
organizational hypocrisy (Kılıçoğlu et al., 2019), teacher motivation (Gökçe, 2010), etc.
With 78 articles, Model B emerged as the second most studied conceptual model in the
literature. This model aims to describe managerial or leadership behaviors/practices of
educational administrators (Bektas, 2014; Bellibaş, 2015; Özaslan, 2018).
Model BC studies (n¼41) investigate the relationship between leadership/management
and organizational behavior variables (Cansoy and Parlar, 2018; Uğurlu and Üstüner, 2011),
while model ABC studies (n¼14) are likewise concerned with this relationship, but also
control for a number of antecedent variables (Duyar et al., 2013; Kalman and Gedikoğlu,
2014). The data set also includes 41 model A studies that focus solely on contextual
antecedents of educational environments (Aypay and Kalaycı, 2008; Erdem et al., 2011) or
personal antecedents of leaders (Gümüş, 2015; Koşar et al., 2014).
There are 16 model AC articles concerned with how antecedent variables account for the
variation in the features of school operations (Doğan and Yurtseven, 2018; Kahveci and
Demirtas, 2013) and 22 model AB articles focusing on the relationship between antecedent
A AB AC ABC ACD B BC BCD BD CD C
41
22
16 14
1
78
41
254
79
Number of Studies
Conceptual Models
Figure 3.
Distribution
of Turkish
EDLM articles by
conceptual model
A systematic
review of
educational
leadership
variables and leadership/management practices (Hacıfazlıoğlu, 2010; Liu et al., 2018).
However, only 12 articles in total include a focus on school outcomes (models ACD, BCD, BD
and CD) (Karadağet al., 2014; Kondakçıand Sivri, 2014).
Methodology
Research approach
We classified the selected articles according to their use of research methods (see Table II),
focusing solely on the 293 articles classified as empirical. Approximately two-thirds of these
articles were based on quantitative studies (192), with most of the remaining articles
presenting qualitative studies (90). Mixed–method approaches featured in only 11 of the
selected articles. This pattern shows a considerably greater reliance on quantitative
research methods than reported for the Asian EDLM literature as a whole, where Hallinger
and Chen (2015) found that the Asian EDLM literature was comprised of 43 percent
qualitative, 37 percent quantitative and 20 percent mixed–methods research.
Data collection
Next, we analyzed the data collection tools employed in empirical studies by Turkish EDLM
scholars (see Table III). The results here are consistent with the findings in our analysis of
research methods with a large proportion of the studies (65 percent) using surveys to collect
data. These studies were based on either quantitative or mixed-method research. Some of
these studies employed secondary data sets, such as the Teaching and Learning
International Survey compiled by OECD (e.g. Bellibaşand Liu, 2017, 2018; Doğan and
Yurtseven, 2018). The second most common data collection tool is interviews (30 percent).
Almost all qualitative and mixed-method studies used interviews for data collection.
However, only few researchers (3 percent) used either observations (Korumaz, 2016) or
document analysis (Akbaba-Altun, 2005).
Statistical tests
We also analyzed the statistical tests used by researchers in quantitative and mixed-methods
studies. The results were rather surprising. According to data presented in Table IV,
59 percent of the 203 articles based on quantitativeand mixed–method studies used advanced
Level 4 statistical methods. These include tests such as multiple regression (Cerit, 2009;
Sezgin, 2009), structural equation modeling (Karadag et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2018), hierarchical
Method Count Percent
Quantitative 192 65
Qualitative 90 31
Mixed methods 11 4
Total 293 100
Table II.
Distribution of
Turkish EDLM
articles by research
method
Statistical level Count Percent
Survey 203 65
Interview 96 30
Observation 6 2
Document analysis 3 1
Other 5 2
Total 313 100
Table III.
Distribution of
Turkish EDLM
articles by data
collection tool
JEA
linear modeling (Duyar et al.,2013) and factoranalysis (Göktürk, 2011). The advantage of such
tests lies in their ability to test for multiple factors. Thus, they tend to be used in research that
employs more sophisticated conceptual models. However, our earlier analysis shows that
many of the selected studies used a single dimension (e.g. B or C) within their conceptual
models. This might be because some of the studies that used advanced statistical analyses
include teachers’gender, experience, etc., as independent variables in order to analyze a single
dimension such as leadership or organizational behavior based on data collected from
teachers. As such, Turkish scholars do not use their strength in quantitative research to
advance their conceptual models by adding additional dimensions, such as antecedents of
educational environments or school administrators.
Discussion and conclusions
With the aim of contributing to current efforts to draw attention to the body of knowledge
produced by researchers from non-Western countries within the field of EDLM, this paper
presents a systematic review of Turkish EDLM literature based on 315 articles published
between 1994 and 2018. Specifically, we analyze the methods, topical foci and conceptual models
used in the selected studies. In the following, we discuss limitations of the review, summarize the
main findings, and offer recommendations for both policymakers and researchers.
Limitations
The review presented here has two main limitations. First, although we reviewed a
substantial number of studies (n¼315), there is a significant amount of additional
relevant research published by Turkish scholars. Our data set only included journal
articles and excluded conference proceedings, books and theses/dissertations.
In addition, a large number of national journals, which are generally Turkish-language
publications, were excluded from the data set in order to ensure the manageability of the
data extraction and analysis process. Nevertheless, we believe this review adds
significantly to previous reviews of local EDLM journals conducted by Turkish scholars
(e.g. Turan et al., 2014; Yılmaz, 2018).
Second, this review does not provide an in-depth analysis of findings from the reviewed
studies. However, it details the methods, conceptual models and topical foci characterizing
Turkish EDLM research and thereby highlights currently underrepresented approaches
and topics, suggesting potentially fruitful new lines of inquiry for both Turkish and
international EDLM scholars. It also enables researchers to compare and contrast EDLM
research in Turkey with other emerging societies in Asia (Hallinger and Chen, 2015; Oplatka
and Arar, 2017), Africa (Bush and Glover, 2016; Hallinger, 2018) and Latin America (Castillo
and Hallinger, 2018).
Discussion
The analysis of the distribution of topics in the Turkish EDLM literature identifies two
topics (organizational behavior and leadership) that dominate the research. A significant
number of these studies combined both concepts and investigated the influence of
Statistical level Count Percent
Level one 16 8
Level two 28 14
Level three 39 19
Level four 120 59
Total 203 100
Table IV.
Distribution of
Turkish EDLM
articles by
statistical level
A systematic
review of
educational
leadership
principals’leadership on teachers’organizational behaviors (model BC). Previous
international reviews of EDLM studies (Aypay et al., 2010; Hallinger, 2018; Oplatka and
Arar, 2017) support our finding that leadership is one of the most popular topics in EDLM
research. However, this result is particularly interesting in the Turkish case since the
centralized education system emphasizes principalship more of a managerial position rather
than leadership (Yılmaz, 2016). This is because, similar to the research in Arab countries
(Oplatka and Arar, 2017), leadership studies in Turkey lack a focus on the impact of social,
cultural and organizational factors on principals’practices and behaviors. As a result,
knowledge concerning leadership and schools as organizations is primarily based on
concepts, theories and associated tools developed in Western societies. Therefore, although
a large number of Turkish studies focus on leadership, they have produced little knowledge
regarding effective leadership behaviors and practices relevant to Turkish schools’cultural,
institutional and social context.
Supporting earlier findings (Balcıand Apaydın, 2009; Aydınet al., 2010), our review also
provides evidence that Turkish EDLM scholars have not paid enough attention to certain
key topics, including gender, social justice, diversity and culture, which seem highly
relevant to the Turkish context. There may be several reasons for this gap in the research.
The centralized nature of the Turkish education system emphasizes the MoNE’s control
over all aspects of education, including funding, curriculum and staff assignment. Despite a
diverse population, the monotype characteristic of the education system limits the diversity
of educational practices within the country (Çelik et al., 2017; Şimşek, 1997). Since the
education system does not place much emphasis on the diverse nature of Turkish society,
researchers seem reluctant to study issues related to gender, equality and culture. On the
other hand, align with the current emphasis on social justice within international EDLM
literature, the issue of social justice has recently become more prominent in the literature
(Arar et al., 2017; Özdemir, 2017).
Our analysis of the conceptual models used in the studies indicates that Turkish scholars
have also largely ignored school outcomes and the influence of leadership and organization
on student learning –something which previous international reviews have found in other
non-Western societies (Castillo and Hallinger, 2018; Oplatka and Arar, 2017). This suggests
that Turkish scholars are mostly interested in understanding the existing operations in
schools rather than the outcomes of these operations, which might bring us back to the
discussion of context-specific leadership practices. For instance, the available literature
provides little knowledge as to which specific leadership practices and behaviors or
organizational factors in Turkish schools are important to produce better student outcomes.
Future studies focusing on the relationship between leadership and school outcomes could
help Turkish scholars initiate their own effective school research and suggest practices
relevant to the context. However, the availability of reliable data for such analysis is another
issue. Although centralized exams are very common at different stages of the education
system in Turkey, obtaining data on student achievement is difficult.
Another key finding that emerged from our analysis of the Turkish EDLM literature is
the prevalence of quantitative studies based on advanced-level statistical approaches,
indicating a preference for quantitative approaches among Turkish EDLM scholars, as well
as their strength in statistical analysis. Earlier reviews of local Turkish EDLM publications
confirm this interpretation by indicating an even higher representation of quantitative
research approaches within Turkish EDLM literature (Balcıand Apaydın, 2009). Our
findings related to research method, however, contrast somewhat with the results of EDLM
reviews in other societies, including countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, where
qualitative methods were more equally represented (Hallinger and Chen, 2015; Hallinger,
2018; Castillo and Hallinger, 2018). The dominance of quantitative methods within Turkish
EDLM research could be another example of knowledge produced by other societies being
JEA
transferred to a Turkish context rather than using qualitative and mixed method
approaches to develop concepts and theories derived from the country’s social, cultural and
institutional dynamics (Balcıet al., 2009).
Regarding methodology, we found that surveys and interviews have been the most
commonly used data collection tools in Turkish EDLM research. Relying solely on
surveys and interviews while ignoring experimental research, observations and document
analyses poses serious questions regarding the quality of the Turkish EDLM research. It
seems that Turkish EDLM scholars tend to spend less time and effort in understanding
local school practices; instead they are likely to quickly apply surveys developed in
Western countries (Simsek, 1997). There are a number of possible explanations for this
tendency. First, tenure tracks at Turkish universities emphasize the quantity rather than
the quality of academic publications, which motivates scholars to produce a large number
of papers in a short period of time (Özkok, 2016). Second, only very limited funding is
available for researchers, who therefore tend to use surveys and interviews as a
comparatively easy and cheap way of conducting research (Balcıet al., 2009). Third, the
EDLM degree programs are only loosely connected to school practices (Balcıet al., 2009),
which limits personal and professional ties between EDLM scholars and schools. High
teaching loads at the undergraduate level might also prevent EDLM scholars from
working closely with schools and principals, observing the real-world issues they face and
designing different types of research (Örücü and Simsek, 2011).
Conclusions
The results of our analyses suggest that Turkish scholars focus on a narrow range of topics,
with most studies using theories and models of leadership and organizational behavior
originally developed in Western societies. We recommend that Turkish scholars direct their
future research to exploring and better understanding the practices of Turkish principals and
teachers in schools by taken into account specific features of the culture and educational
system in Turkey (Oplatka and Arar, 2016). By doing this, Turkish EDLM scholars might
offer a greater contribution to the theoretical/conceptual discussions in the field of EDLM. We
also suggest that Turkish EDLM scholars should diversify their research to include more
context-relevant issues, such as gender, diversity, social justice, etc. In terms of the conceptual
models, the Turkish EDLM literature, similar to that in many other non-Western societies,
lacks a focus on educational outcomes. We suggest that scholars from non-Western societies
focus more of their research on the effects of educational leadership, organizational structures,
processes, etc. on educational outcomes. This would provide both national and international
researchers, policymakers and practitioners with knowledge of practices empirically proven to
make a difference in national contexts of school and education. To enable such research,
national authorities should create ways for scholars to easily access relevant data.
Unlike the Asian (Hallinger and Chen, 2015) and African research (Hallinger, 2018),
Turkish EDLM studies are largely empirical and depend on quantitative methods with
advanced-level statistical tests. The current body of studies suffers significantly from the lack
of quantitative experimental designs and the scarcity of observational and documentanalysis
techniques in the available qualitative based research. Dealing with various research
problems that are relevant to the national school context requires researchers to use
alternative research designs, methods and data collection tools (Hallinger, 2018). Therefore,
there is a need to develop the capacity of Turkish scholars in using more sophisticated
qualitative and mixed-method designs, as well as experimental studies, in order to produce
context-specific EDLM knowledge. Based on the current higher education context, reducing
scholars’teaching load, diversifying research funding opportunities and modifying access to
tenure tracks seem necessary interventions to support EDLM research with strong ties to
practice and to the sociocultural context (Balcıet al., 2009; Örücü and Simsek, 2011).
A systematic
review of
educational
leadership
In addition, policy changes aiming professionalization of administrative positions and
establishing some forms of formal training for school principalship are needed. Such changes
can help transfer the knowledge produced by the Turkish EDLM researchers to the practice
and provide solutions to problems related to school administration.
References
Ağaoğlu, E., Altınkurt, Y., Yılmaz, K. and Karaöse, T. (2012), “Okul yöneticilerinin yeterliklerine ilişkin
okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri (Kütahya ili)”,Eğitim ve Bilim, Vol. 37 No. 164,
pp. 159-175.
Akbaba-Altun, S. (2005), “Turkish school principals’earthquake experiences and reactions”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 307-317.
Akbulut, M., Seggie, F.N. and Börkan, B. (2015), “Faculty member perceptions of department head
leadership effectiveness at a state university in Turkey”,International Journal of Leadership in
Education, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 440-463.
Akcaoğlu, M., Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M.S. and Boyer, D.M. (2015), “Policy, practice, and reality: exploring
a nation-wide technology implementation in Turkish schools”,Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 477-491.
Akın, U. (2015), “The relationship between organizational cynicism and trust in schools: a research on
teachers”,Education and Science, Vol. 40 No. 181, pp. 175-189.
Arar, K., Beycioğlu, K. and Oplatka, I. (2017), “A cross-cultural analysis of educational leadership for
social justice in Israel and Turkey: meanings, actions and contexts”,Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 192-206.
Aydın, A., Erdağ, C. and Sarıer, Y. (2010), “A comparison of articles published in the field of educational
administration in terms of topics, methodologies and results”,Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 37-58.
Aydın, I. and Karaman-Kepenekci, Y. (2008), “Principals’opinions of organisational justice in
elementary schools in Turkey”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 497-513.
Aydın, I., Arastaman, G. and Akar, F. (2011), “Sources of conflict between primary school principals
and school counsellors in Turkey”,Egitim ve Bilim, Vol. 36 No. 160, pp. 199-212.
Aypay, A. and Kalaycı, S.S. (2008), “Assessing institutionalization of educational reforms”,
International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 723-736.
Aypay, A., Çoruk, A., Yazgan, D., Kartal, O., Çağatay, M., Tunçer, B. and Emran, B. (2010), “The status
of research in educational administration: an analysis of educational administration journals,
1999-2007”,Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 59-77.
Balcı, A. (2008), “Türkiye’de eğitim yönetiminin bilimleşme düzeyi”,Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim
Yönetimi Dergisi, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 181-209.
Balcı, A. and Apaydın, Ç. (2009), “Türkiye’de eğitim yönetimi araştırmalarının durumu: Kuram ve
uygulamada eğitim yönetimi dergisi örneği”,Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 325-344.
Balcı, A., Şimşek, H., Gümüşeli, A.İ. and Tanrıöğer, A. (2009), “Eğitim yönetimi araştırmalarıve yayın
hakkında rapor”, EYEDDER Rapor Serisi, Ankara.
Baloğlu, N. (2012), “Relations between value-based leadership and distributed leadership: a casual
research on school principles’behaviors”,Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 1375-1378.
Balyer,A.andÖzcan,K.(2012),“Cultural adaptation of headmasters’transformational leadership scale and a
study on teachers’perceptions”,Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,Vol.49No.1,pp.103-128.
Bektas, F. (2014), “School principals’personal constructs regarding technology: an analysis based on
decision-making grid technique”,Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 1767-1775.
JEA
Bellibaş, M.S. (2015), “Principals’and teachers’perceptions of efforts by principals to improve teaching
and learning in Turkish middle schools”,Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 15
No. 6, pp. 1471-1485.
Bellibaş, M.S. and Liu, Y. (2017), “Multilevel analysis of the relationship between principals’perceived
practices of instructional leadership and teachers’self-efficacy perceptions”,Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 49-69.
Bellibaş, M.S. and Liu, Y. (2018), “The effects of principals’perceived instructional and distributed
leadership practices on their perceptions of school climate”,International Journal of Leadership
in Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 226-244.
Bellibaş, M.S., Özaslan, G., Gümüş, E. and Gümüş, S. (2016), “Examining department chairs’needs in
performing academic leadership in Turkish universities”,Education and Science, Vol. 41 No. 184,
pp. 91-103.
Beycioğlu, K., Şahin, I. and Kesik, F. (2018), “Analysis of maladministration of selection and assignment of
school principals in turkey: a critical perspective”, in Samier, E. and Milley, P. (Eds), International
Perspectives on Maladministration in Education, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 137-150.
Boyce, J. and Bowers, A.J. (2018), “Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as
leadership for learning: meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 161-182.
Bridges, E. (1982), “Research on the school administrator: the state-of-the-art, 1967-1980”,Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 12-33.
Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2016), “School leadership and management in South Africa: findings from a
systematic literature review”,International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 211-231.
Cansoy, R. and Parlar, H. (2018), “Examining the relationship between school principals’instructional
leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy”,International Journal
of Educational Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 550-567.
Castillo, F.A. and Hallinger, P. (2018), “Systematic review of research on educational leadership and
management in Latin America, 1991–2017”,Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 207-225.
Çelik, Z., Gümüş, S. and Gür, B.S. (2017), “Moving beyond a monotype education in turkey: major
reforms in the last decade and challenges ahead”, in Cha, Y.K., Gundara, J., Ham, S.H. and Lee, M.
(Eds), Multicultural Education in Glocal Perspectives, Springer, Singapore, pp. 103-119.
Cemaloğlu, N. (2011), “Primary principals’leadership styles, school organizational health and
workplace bullying”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 495-512.
Cerit, Y. (2009), “The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school principals on teachers’job
satisfaction”,Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 600-623.
Cerit, Y. (2010), “The effects of servant leadership on teachers’organizational commitment in primary
schools in Turkey”,International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 301-317.
Cherkowski, S., Currie, R. and Hilton, S. (2012), “Who should rank our journals…and based on what?”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 206-230.
Cooper, H.M. and Hedges, L. (2009), The Handbook of Research Synthesis, Russell Sage Foundation,
New York, NY.
Doğan, S. and Yurtseven, N. (2018), “Professional learning as a predictor for instructional quality: a
secondary analysis of TALIS”,School Effectiveness and School Improvement,Vol.29No.1,pp.64-90.
Duyar, I., Gümüş, S. and Bellibaş, M.S. (2013), “Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes: the
influence of principal leadership and teacher collaboration”,International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 700-719.
Eidel, T. and Kitchel, J. (Eds) (1968), Knowledge Production and Utilization in Educational
Administration, ERIC, Eugene, OR.
A systematic
review of
educational
leadership
Ekinci, A. (2015), “Development of the school principals’servant leadership behaviors scale and
evaluation of servant leadership behaviors according to teachers’views”,Education and Science,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 241-260.
Erdem, M., Aydin, I., Tasdan, M. and Akin, U. (2011), “Educational problems and solutions in Turkey:
the views of district governors”,Educational Management Administration and Leadership,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 242-256.
Erickson, D.A. (1979), “Research on educational administration: the state-of-the-art”,Educational
Researcher, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 9-14.
Gök, E. (2014), “Clinical faculty members in the schools of education in the United States: an overview”,
Journal of Higher Education & Science, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 141-147.
Gökçe, F. (2010), “Assessment of teacher motivation”,School Leadership and Management, Vol. 30
No. 5, pp. 487-499.
Göktürk, Ş. (2011), “Assessment of the quality of an organizational citizenship behavior instrument”,
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 335-349.
Gough, D. (2007), “Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of
evidence”,Research Papers in Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 213-228.
Güçlü, N., Recepoğlu, E. and Kılınç, A.C. (2014), “The relationship between organizational health of the
primary schools and teachers’motivation”,Hacettepe University Journal of Education, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 140-156.
Gümüş, E. (2015), “Investigation regarding the pre-service trainings of primary and middle school
principals in the United States: the case of the state of Michigan”,Educational Sciences: Theory
and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 61-72.
Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M.S., Esen, M. and Gümüş, E. (2018), “A systematic review of studies on leadership
models in educational research from 1980 to 2014”,Educational Management Administration
and Leadership, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 25-48.
Gümüş, S., Bellibaş,M.Ş., Gümüş, E. and Hallinger, P. (2019), “Science mapping research on educational
leadership and management in Turkey: a bibliometric review of international publications”,
School Leadership & Management.
Hacıfazlıoğlu, O. (2010), “Balance in academic leadership: voices of women from Turkey and the United
States of America (US)”,Perspectives in Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 51-62.
Hall, V. and Southworth, G. (1997), “Headship”,School Leadership & Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 151-170.
Hallinger, P. (2013), “A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational
leadership and management”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 126-149.
Hallinger, P. (2018), “Surfacing a hidden literature: a systematic review of research on educational
leadership and management in Africa”,Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 362-384.
Hallinger, P. (2019), “Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management
from the emerging regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America, 1965–2018”,Educational
Management Administration & Leadership.
Hallinger, P. and Chen, J. (2015), “Review of research on educational leadership and management in
Asia: a comparative analysis of research topics and methods, 1995–2012”,Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Hallinger, P. and Kovačević, J. (2019), “A bibliometric review of research on educational administration:
science mapping the literature, 1960 to 2018”,Review of Educational Research,
0034654319830380.
Hammad, W. and Hallinger, P. (2017), “A systematic review of conceptual models and methods used in
research on educational leadership and management in Arab societies”,School Leadership and
Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 434-456.
JEA
Ilgan, A., Parylo, O. and Sungu, H. (2015), “Predicting teacher job satisfaction based on principals’
instructional supervision behaviours: a study of Turkish teachers”,Irish Educational Studies,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 69-88.
İpek, C. (2010), “Predicting organizational commitment from organizational culture in Turkish primary
schools”,Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 371-385.
Kahveci, G. and Demirtas, Z. (2013), “School administrator and teachers’perceptions of organizational
silence”,Education and Science, Vol. 38 No. 167, pp. 50-64.
Kalman, M. and Arslan, M.C. (2016), “School principals’evaluations of their instructional leadership
behaviours: realities vs. ideals”,School Leadership and Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 508-530.
Kalman, M. and Gedikoğlu, T. (2014), “An investigation of the relationship between school
administrators’accountability and organizational justice”,Hacettepe University Journal of
Education, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 115-128.
Karadağ, E., Kılıçoğlu, G. and Yılmaz, D. (2014), “Organizational cynicism, school culture, and academic
achievement: the study of structural equation modeling”,Educational Sciences: Theory and
Practice, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 102-113.
Kılıçoğlu, G., Kılıçoğlu, D.Y. and Karadağ, E. (2019), “Do schools fail to ‘walk their talk’? Development
and validation of a scale measuring organizational hypocrisy”,Leadership and Policy in Schools,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 52-82.
Kılınç, A.Ç. (2014), “Examining the relationship between teacher leadership and school climate”,
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 1729-1742.
Kondakçı, Y. and Sivri, H. (2014), “Salient characteristics of high-performing Turkish elementary
schools”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 254-272.
Kondakçı, Y., Zayim, M., Beycioğlu, K., Sincar, M. and Ugurlu, C.T. (2016), “The mediating roles of
internal context variables in the relationship between distributed leadership perceptions and
continuous change behaviours of public school teachers”,Educational Studies, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 410-426.
Korkmaz, M. (2005), “Okul yöneticilerinin yetiştirilmesi: Sorunlar, çözümler ve öneriler”,Gazi
Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 237-252.
Korumaz, M. (2016), “Invisible barriers: the loneliness of school principals at Turkish elementary
schools”,South African Journal of Education, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1-12.
Koşar, D., Altunay, E. and Yalçınkaya, M. (2014), “The difficulties of female primary school
administrators in the administration process and solution suggestions”,Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 905-919.
Koşar, S. (2015), “Trust in school principal and self-efficacy as predictors of teacher professionalism”,
Education and Science, Vol. 40 No. 181, pp. 255-270.
Kösterelioğlu, M.A. (2017), “The effect of teachers’shared leadership perception on academic optimism
and organizational citizenship behaviour: a Turkish case”,International Journal of Leadership in
Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 246-258.
Kurt, T. (2016), “A model to explain teacher leadership: the effects of distributed leadership model,
organizational learning and teachers’sense of self-efficacy on teacher leadership”,Egitim ve
Bilim, Vol. 41 No. 183, pp. 1-28.
Kurt, T., Gür, B.S. and Çelik, Z. (2017), “Necessity for reforming Turkish higher education system and
possibility of governance of state universities by the board of trustees”,Education and Science,
Vol. 42 No. 189, pp. 49-71.
Liu, Y. and Bellibaş, M.S. (2018), “School factors that are related to school principals’job satisfaction
and organizational commitment”,International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 90 No. 1,
pp. 1-19.
Liu, Y., Bellibaş, M.S. and Printy, S. (2018), “How school context and educator characteristics predict
distributed leadership: a hierarchical structural equation model with 2013 TALIS data”,
Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 401-423.
A systematic
review of
educational
leadership
Memduhoğlu, H.B. (2015), “Examining primary school administrators’according to the perceptions of
teachers and administrators”,Education and Science, Vol. 40 No. 177, pp. 271-284.
Mertkan, S., Arsan, N., Inal Cavlan, G. and Onurkan Aliusta, G. (2017), “Diversity and equality in
academic publishing: the case of educational leadership”,Compare: A Journal of Comparative
and International Education, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 46-61.
Nir, A., Kondakçı, Y. and Emil, S. (2018), “Travelling policies and contextual considerations: on
threshold criteria”,Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Ogawa, R., Goldring, E. and Conley, S. (2000), “Organizing the field to improve research on educational
administration”,Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 340-357.
Oplatka, I. and Arar, K. (2016), “The field of educational administration as an arena of knowledge
production: some implications for Turkish field members”,Research in Educational
Administration and Leadership, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 161-186.
Oplatka, I. and Arar, K.H. (2017), “The research on educational leadership and management in the Arab
world since the 1990s: a systematic review”,Review of Education, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 267-307.
Örücü, D. and Simsek, H. (2011), “Akademisyenlerin gözünden Türkiye’de egitim yönetiminin
akademik durumu: Nitel bir analiz”,Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 167-197.
Özcan, Ş. and Bakioğlu, A. (2010), “Meta-analytic effect analysis: the effect of in-service training
on the job performance of school administrators”,HU Journal of Education, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 201-212.
Özdemir, M. (2017), “Examining the relations among social justice leadership, attitudes towards school
and school engagement”,Education and Science, Vol. 42 No. 191, pp. 267-281.
Özgan, H. (2013), “Trainee teachers’expectations from school administrators during their socialization
processes”,Education and Science, Vol. 38 No. 168, pp. 17-29.
Özkok, E.İ. (2016), “Eğitim Yönetimi ve Denetimi Türkçe Alanyazınının Durumu: Akademisyen Bakış
Açısı”, unpublished master’s thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa.
Özaslan, G. (2018), “Principals’conceptions of their current power basis revealed through
phenomenography”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 220-235.
Polat, S. (2012), “Organizational values needed for diversity management”,Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1409-1418.
Robinson, V.M., Lloyd, C.A. and Rowe, K.J. (2008), “The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an
analysis of the differential effects of leadership types”,Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 635-674.
Sağnak, M. (2010), “The relationship between transformational school leadership and ethical climate”,
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1135-1152.
Sezgin, F. (2009), “Relationships between teacher organizational commitment, psychological hardiness
and some demographic variables in Turkish primary schools”,Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 630-651.
Sezgin, F., Kavgacı, H. and Kılınç, A. Ç. (2011), “Türkiye'de Eğitim Yönetimi ve Denetimi Lisansüstü
Öğrencilerinin Öz Değerlendirmeleri”,Journal of Higher Education & Science, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 161-169.
Şimşek, H. (1997), 21. YüzyılınEşiğinde Paradigmalar Savaşıve Kaostaki Türkiye, Sistem Yayıncılık,
İstanbul.
Şişman, M. (2016), “Factors related to instructional leadership perception and effect of instructional
leadership on organizational variables: a Meta-Analysis”,Educational Sciences: Theory and
Practice, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 1761-1787.
Tanrıöğen, A. and Savcı, S. (2011), “Perceptions of high school teachers related to crisis management in
their schools”,Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 243-258.
JEA
Titrek, O. (2010), “The change of school employees’organizational justice (oj) perceptions concerning
geography according to socio-culture”,Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 179-197.
Turan, S., Karadağ, E., Bektaş, F. and Yalçın, M. (2014), “Türkiye’de eğitim yönetiminde bilgi üretimi:
Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi 2003-2013 yayınlarının incelenmesi”,Kuram ve
Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 93-119.
Uğurlu, C.T. and Üstüner, M. (2011), “Effects of administrators’ethical leadership and organizational
justice behavior on teachers’organizational commitment level”,Hacettepe University Journal of
Education, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 434-448.
Uslu, B. and Arslan, H. (2018), “Faculty’s academic intellectual leadership: the intermediary relations
with universities’organizational components”,International Journal of Leadership in Education,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 399-411.
Walker, A.D. 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, Springer, Dordrecht,
pp. 67-204.
Wang, Y. and Bowers, A.J. (2016), “Mapping the field of educational administration research: a journal
citation network analysis”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 242-269.
Yaman, E. (2010), “Perception of faculty members exposed to mobbing about the organizational culture
and climate”,Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 567-578.
Yavuz, M. (2010), “Effectiveness of supervisions conducted by primary education supervisors
according to school principals’evaluations”,The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 103 No. 6,
pp. 371-378.
Yılmaz, K. (2016), “Turkiyede egitim liderligi makaleleri ile ilgili bir degerlendirme”, in Balcıve, A. and
Aydın, İ. (Eds), Prof. Dr. Ziya Bursalıoğlu’na armağan, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri
Fakültesi Yayını, Ankara, pp. 369-394.
Yılmaz, K. (2018), “A critical view to the studies related to the field of educational administration in
Turkey”,Journal of Human Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 123-154.
Yılmaz, K. and Taşdan, M. (2009), “Organizational citizenship and organizational justice in Turkish
primary schools”,Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 108-126.
Yolcu, H. (2011), “Decentralization of education and strengthening the participation of parents in school
administration in Turkey: what has changed?”,Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 1243-1251.
Corresponding author
Mehmet Şükrü Bellibaşcan be contacted at: msbellibas@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
A systematic
review of
educational
leadership
A preview of this full-text is provided by Emerald Publishing.
Content available from Journal of Educational Administration
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
