The educational leadership knowledge base was criticized for being somehow divorced from socio-political and socio-economic forces, which indisputably influence how leadership is practiced and why (Dimmock and Tan, 2013). Limitations of the assumed universality of leadership studies, as well as the possible incompatibility between Anglo-American conceptualizations of leadership and the situational realities of recipient non-Anglo-American contexts have increasingly been acknowledged, with calls for greater contextual sensitivity and more studies from non-Anglo-American contexts (Mertkan et al., 2017; Szeto et al., 2015). Following these calls, there has been a dramatic increase in research from a broader range of cultures and contexts, beyond the Anglo-American roots that typically have characterized the historical development of the field (Bush, 2023).

This increase has been documented through topographical reviews at regional and country-specific level (e.g. Hallinger 2019), confirming the increasing number of studies from places such as Hong Kong (Hallinger and Bryant, 2016), South Africa (Hallinger, 2019), and Malaysia (Adams et al., 2023) among others. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has explored whether and how this increasing geographical diversification in educational leadership and management scholarship has influenced the field in terms of its hitherto dominant Anglo-American conceptualizations and concepts (Mertkan and Gümüş, 2024). This present study explores the increasing geographical landscape of diversification in the educational leadership and management knowledge base and what it tells us about the field’s development from the perspective of some of the most prominent scholars who have engaged in leadership and management studies in non-Anglo-American contexts. We specifically focus on how these scholars perceive the changes and developments to the field, if any, derived from a broader, more diverse range of contextual leadership studies. Specifically, our aim is to discover whether these scholars’ insights testify to  the development and expansion of firstly, the conceptualization of educational ledership and management as a field of study and secondly, the broadening of key concepts, conceptual frameworks, and theories beyond those originating from the dominant Anglo-American contexts and theoretical base.

Justification for this study lies in the acknowledged significance of educational leadership and management in improving school systems, schools and pedagogy. However, the question remains how much more effective leadership might or could be if research, theory and practice were more finely attuned to particular contexts and cultures. This study investigates the extent to which this relationship has been advanced by the increase in studies from more diverse settings in recent years – and does so through the perspectives of leading scholars who have adopted cross-cultural studies. Our hunch is that there is still substantial scope for developing the field in ways which capture more indigenous, culturally-sensitive, insights to leadership and management practices with implications for conceptualizing and theorizing – in non-Anglo-American settings.

The shift so far in the pursuit of diversification in scholarship in the field and the resulting knowledge base has been documented by Hallinger & Kovačević (2021) in their longitudinal bibliometric analysis, which found a substantial increase between 1960 and 2018 in gender studies and geo-cultural diversity  in the field. However, critical questions remain as to whether this increase in gender and geographic representation has led to new, more enhanced conceptualizations of leadership, including underlying values, philosophy, characteristics, practices, and roles across a broadening array of societies and contexts. Given the parameters and norms of academic publishing, and the related requirements for publication in the field’s journals, further questions arise as to whether editors and reviewers of journals show sufficient awareness and recognition of the importance of research capturing cultural and conceptual sensitivities in developing the theoretical base beyond Anglo-American foundations.

Employing qualitative methodology, this study is based on data generated through semi-structured, in-depth 60–90-minute interviews conducted with 19 educational leadership and management scholars who have conducted country-specific or regional systematic reviews, or who have demonstrated through their studies a commitment to contextual sensitivity. The interview schedule contained mostly semi-structured questions, allowing for both pre-formulated and participant-led issues. The data analysis process involved multiple rounds of content coding of interview transcripts adopting a general inductive approach as characterised by Thomas (2006:241) and King and Horrocks (2010:153). Reflective notes were also developed after each interview, focusing on the nature of diversification in the leadership scholarship and dominant or shifting concepts and conceptualisations of leadership. The process of analysis will include the following processes as suggested by Braun & Clark (2006) and Creswell & Creswell (2018) - an initial reading of the collated data (transcripts and reflective notes), the identification of patterns, themes, and descriptions arising, segments of text labelled using descriptive coding, the collation of the descriptive codes into broader themes; and then based on the interpreted relationship, overarching dimensions will be created. Ethical approval has been granted by the Education University of Hong Kong where the second author was employed at the time of application.

Expected outcomes and findings include a significant continued reliance on Anglo-American conceptualisations and theories to support analysis of work published in non-Anglo-American centres of knowledge production, despite growing geographical diversification. However, many studies underscore the need for a more thorough examination of socio-cultural contextual nuances. This calls for a shift towards incorporating more indigenous, context-bound conceptualisations that go beyond the traditional Anglo-American frameworks as the basis for research and analysis to move the field forward. The relationship between the diversification of scholarship and the representation of new and more varied conceptualizations is also influenced by publishing norms and practices. The study may well conclude that while there is an increase in geographic representation, the norms of academic publishing, inter alia, may still favor and pre-dispose the field towards dominant Anglo-American perspectives.

Adams, D., Thien, L. M., Chuin, E. C. Y., & Semaadderi, P. (2023). The elusive Malayan tiger ‘captured’: A systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Malaysia. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(3), 673-692. Bush, T. (2023). The price of popularity: Expanding EMAL to manage demand. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(1), 3-5. Dimmock, C., & Yong Tan, C. (2013). Educational leadership in Singapore: tight coupling, sustainability, scalability, and succession. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 320-340. Hallinger, P. (2019). A systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in South Africa: mapping knowledge production in a developing society. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(3), 316–334. Hallinger, P. (2019). A systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in South Africa: mapping knowledge production in a developing society. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(3), 316–334. Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J. (2021). Science mapping the knowledge base in educational leadership and management: A longitudinal bibliometric analysis, 1960 to 2018. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 5-30. Hallinger, P., & Bryant, D. A. (2014). Exploring features of highly productive research contexts in Asia: a comparison of knowledge production in educational leadership in Israel and Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 165–184. Mertkan, S., & Gümüş, S. (2024). Review of systematic reviews in educational leadership and management: Methods used, topics explored and geographies covered. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 0(0). https:// doi.org/10.1177/17411432241291197 Mertkan, S., Arsan, N., Inal Cavlan, G., & Onurkan Aliusta, G. (2016). Diversity and equality in academic publishing: the case of educational leadership. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(1), 46–61. Szeto, E., T. T. H. Lee, and P. Hallinger. 2015. “A Systematic Review of Research on Educational Leadership in Hong Kong, 1995-2014.” Journal of Educational Administration 53 (4): 534–553.