The development of a research field is built upon a continuous accumulation of knowledge, from theoretical and empirical research as well as critical reviews. Mapping the field of research on education leadership administration and management serves various purposes: first, the established knowledge-base should be acknowledged from different perspectives: theoretical, empirical, and critical. Hence, it can illuminate the evolvement of research in this field from an international, international comparative as well a national perspective. By doing this, thematical as well a geographic information illustrates the development of research areas within the field as well as the applied research methodologies (qualitative, quantitative as well as mixed-method research possibly using a variation of data gathering and data analysing methods embedded in focussed or comprehensive research design approaches). Second, it can demonstrate shared academic understandings, research constraints and research gaps. Hence, it helps to locate and embed new research. On the basis of that, it helps to widen and deepen the knowledge-base of the research field in general and shape the research areas and sub-areas within the research field in particular (Boote & Beile, 2005). Conducting review studies in the field of education leadership administration and management, however, entails several challenges. For instance, as an emerging new discipline since the 1980s, this research field has gained a dramatic expansion in terms of its research contexts, methods, and theoretical frameworks (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Hallinger, 2011; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Moreover, research on education leadership administration and management is built upon multiple research origins with long research traditions, such as educational science, pedagogy, leadership and management research, public administration, sociology, and psychology (Bolden, 2011; Boote & Beile, 2005; Tian, Risku, & Collin, 2016). We argue, as an emerging cross-disciplinary and international research field, research on education leadership administration and management calls for more review studies using robust review methodologies, following an explicit review procedure, and examining literature from a broader set of national contexts. Similar, Hallinger suggest a review framework and quality criteria. This paper aims to enhance the methodological sophistication of review studies by first synthesising and evaluating the existing review criteria in earlier studies. Methodological concerns are elaborated. Finally a review framework for conducting systematic review in the field of research on education leadership administration and management is suggested as well as what kind of mapping research should be conducted.

Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research: Distributed Leadership in Organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251–269. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. Hallinger, P. (2011). Developing a Knowledge Base for Educational Leadership and Management in East Asia. School Leadership & Management, 31(4), 305–320. Hallinger, P. (2014). Reviewing Reviews of Research in Educational Leadership: An Empirical Assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 539–576. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principals’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 146–164.