回顧性研究對公共政策與知識基礎之建立具有重要意義，但臺灣對於學校領導領域研究的回顧並不多見，故本研究以收錄於Scopus資料庫的期刊文章為範圍，以文獻計量方法進行近20年之研究回顧，探討的核心旨趣在於瞭解本土研究與全球學術的連結。經篩選後，計以95篇中、英文文章為分析對象。重要研究發現有三：一、在發表數量與期刊方面，臺灣於2001年方有學校領導的英文論文發表於國際期刊，而世界大學排名之強調及頂尖大學計畫之推動，雖使過往獨重中文發表的狀況產生改變，惟整體發表量仍偏少，且刊登於教育領導與管理核心期刊的比例亦不及兩成。二、以文獻被引用情形分析國際能見度，近20年臺灣學校領導論文被引用數前十名的作者，平均論文篇數為3.5篇、平均被引用數則為45.2次，其中，平均被引用數與非洲地區教育領導研究之落差為3.33倍，與亞洲、非洲及拉丁美洲三個新興地區之落差為11.78倍。三、臺灣學者之研究主題能與國際學界相呼應，但仍有部分議題尚待開展。而共引用分析結果顯示，臺灣學校領導研究的智識結構可分為學習領導、分散形式的領導、領導行為及其影響，以及社會網絡等四個論述派別。上述結果指陳全球化下臺灣教育行政領域的發展，除可致力國際影響力的提升，亦應力求議題之多元。

» 展開更多

1. 林明地（2000）。校長領導的影響：近三十年來研究結果的分析。國家科學委員會研究彙刊：人文及社會科學，10（2），232-254。 【Lin, M.-D. (2000). The impact of principal leadership: An analysis of the research findings, 1970-1999. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China, Part C: Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(2), 232-254.】
2. 張元杰、邱文宏、蔡林彤飛（2010）。台灣科技管理研究的回顧與展望：書目計量的觀點。科技管理學刊，15（4），1-27。https://doi.org/10.6378/JTM.201012.0001 【Chang, Y.-C., Chiu, W.-H., & Tsai-Lin, T.-F. (2010). The retrospect and prospect on MOT research in Taiwan: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Technology Management, 15(4), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.6378/JTM.201012.0001】
3. 陳文彥、潘慧玲（2019）。校長領導對教師學習領導的影響：檢視信任關係與學業強調的調節作用。教育科學研究期刊，64（1），119-147。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201903_64(1).0005 【Chen, W.-Y., & Pan, H.-L. W. (2019). The effect of principal leadership on teacher leadership for learning: How trust and academic emphasis moderate? Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(1), 119-147. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201903_64(1).0005】
4. 蔡明月（2004）。論資訊計量學。圖書館學與資訊科學，30（2），83-91。 【Tsay, M.-Y. (2004). An introduction to informetrics. Journal of Library and Information Science, 30(2), 83-91.】
5. 潘慧玲（2010，10月30日）。教育領導與學校變革研究議題的發展。國科會教育學門教育行政與政策、師資培育領域專題計畫成果發表會，嘉義市，臺灣。 【Pan, H.-L. W. (2010, October 30). The development of research issues on educational leadership and school change. National Science Council Project Presentation on Educational Administration and Policy, and Teacher Education in the Field of Education, Chiayi City, Taiwan.】
6. Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2002). Parallel leadership: A clue to the contents of the “black box” of school reform. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(4), 152-159. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210432128
7. Blase, J., & Blase, J. R. (1994). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do. Corwin Press.
8. Bridges, E. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of the art, 1967-1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X82018003003
9. Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement. Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education, Michigan State University.
10. Campbell, R. F. (1979). A critique of the educational administration quarterly. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013131X7901500303
11. Castillo, F. A., & Hallinger, P. (2018). Systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Latin America, 1991-2017. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(2), 207-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217745882
12. Dimmock, C. (2012). Leadership, capacity building and school improvement: Concepts, themes and impact. Routledge.
13. Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-24.
14. EPPI-Centre. (2012). What is a systematic review? https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=67
15. Griffiths, D. E. (1959). Administrative theory. Prentice Hall.
16. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0
17. Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M. Ş., Gümüş, E., & Hallinger, P. (2020). Science mapping research on educational leadership and management in Turkey: A bibliometric review of international publications. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1578737
18. Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2013). Middle-level secondary school leaders: Potential, constraints and implications for leadership preparation and development. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(1), 55-71. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311291431
19. Hall, C. M. (2011). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management, 32(1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.07.001
20. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
21. Hallinger, P. (2014). Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership: An empirical assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 539-576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13506594
22. Hallinger, P. (2018). Surfacing a hidden literature: A systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 362-384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217694895
23. Hallinger, P. (2020). 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, 48(2), 209-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218822772
24. Hallinger, P., & Bryant, D. (2013a). Mapping the terrain of educational leadership and management in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(5), 618-637. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2012-0066
25. Hallinger, P., & Bryant, D. A. (2013b). Review of research publications on educational leadership and management in Asia: A comparative analysis of three regions. Oxford Review of Education, 39(3), 307-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.803961
26. Hallinger, P., & Bryant, D. A. (2013c). Accelerating knowledge production on educational leadership and management in East Asia: A strategic analysis. School Leadership & Management, 33(3), 202-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.773884
27. Hallinger, P., & Hammad, W. (2019). Knowledge production on educational leadership and management in Arab societies: A systematic review of research. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(1), 20-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217717280
28. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X96032001002
29. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203
30. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214
31. Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J. (2019). A bibliometric review of research on educational administration: Science mapping the literature, 1960 to 2018. Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 335-369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319830380
32. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219859002
33. Hallinger, P., Walker, A., & Trung, G. T. (2015). Making sense of images of fact and fiction: A critical review of the knowledge base for school leadership in Vietnam. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2014-0060
34. Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. Open University Press.
35. Kovačević, J., & Hallinger, P. (2020). Finding Europe’s niche: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management in Europe, 1960-2018. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(3), 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1692875
36. Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 45-72). Jossey-Bass.
37. MacBeath, J., & Dempster, N. (Eds.). (2008). Connecting leadership and learning: Principles for practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203894644
38. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Reprint— Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy, 89(9), 873-880. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873
39. Murphy, J., Vriesenga, M., & Storey, V. (2007). Educational administration quarterly, 1979-2003: An analysis of types of work, methods of investigation, and influences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 612-628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07307796
40. Ng, D., Nguyen, D. T., Wong, B. K. S., & Choy, W. K. W. (2015). A review of Singapore principals’ leadership qualities, styles, and roles. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 512-533. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0085
41. Oplatka, I. (2009). The field of educational administration: A historical overview of scholarly attempts to recognize epistemological identities, meanings and boundaries from the 1960s onwards. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(1), 8-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910928061
42. Pan, H.-L. W., Nyeu, F.-Y., & Chen, J. S. (2015). Principal instructional leadership in Taiwan: Lessons from two decades of research. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 492-511. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2014-0006
43. Prestine, N. A., & Nelson, B. S. (2005). How can educational leaders support and promote teaching and learning? New conceptions of learning and leading in schools. In. W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 46-60). Teachers College Press.
44. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
45. Szeto, E., Lee, T. T. H., & Hallinger, P. (2015). A systematic review of research on educational leadership in Hong Kong, 1995-2014. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 534-553. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2015-0027
46. Walker, A., & Qian, H. (2015). Review of research on school principal leadership in mainland China, 1998-2013: Continuity and change. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 467-491. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2014-0063
47. Walker, A., Hu, R., & Qian, H. (2012). Principal leadership in China: An initial review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 369-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.678863
48. Wang, Y. (2018). The panorama of the last decade’s theoretical groundings of educational leadership research: A concept co-occurrence network analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(3), 327-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18761342
49. Wang, Y., Bowers, A. J., & Fikis, D. J. (2017). Automated text data mining analysis of five decades of educational leadership research literature: Probabilistic topic modeling of EAQ articles from 1965 to 2014. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(2), 289-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16660585
50. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

中文APA引文格式	潘慧玲、陳文彥（2021）。臺灣學校領導研究與全球學術的連結：文獻計量分析。教育科學研究期刊，66（2），175-206。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202106_66(2).0006
APA Format	Pan, H.-L., & Chen, W.-Y. (2021). Connection between Taiwanese research on school leadership and global scholarship: A bibliometric review. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 66(2), 175-206. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202106_66(2).0006

1. Background
Systematic reviews may inform public policies and contribute to the building of a knowledge base. However, reviews of school leadership research are relatively rare in Taiwan. This study conducted a bibliometric review to analyze journal papers by Taiwanese scholars in the Scopus database published in the previous 20 years. The focus was to examine the connection between Taiwanese and global research on school leadership.
2. Research questions
On the basis of the research background, four research questions were proposed: (1) What is the volume and growth trajectory of Taiwanese school leadership research? (2) What is the international visibility of Taiwanese school leadership research as revealed through citation analysis? (3) What are the main topics covered by Taiwanese school leadership research and how do they correspond to the global trend? (4) What is the intellectual structure of Taiwanese school leadership research and how do it connect with the global literature?
3. Theoretical framework
(1) Intellectual development of school leadership research
The theory movement in the 1950s and 1960s highlighted the development of educational administration research. Griffiths (1959) categorized these theories into four groups: social system and role theory, leadership theory, decision theory, and organizational theory. In the 1970s, contingency theory, which emphasizes the influence of context on leadership, was proposed. With the growing interest in school effectiveness and school reform, the organizational perspective was applied to investigate school leadership. Instructional leadership was also emphasized from then on. In the 1990s, other leadership approaches such as transformational leadership, moral leadership, and distributed leadership became popular in school leadership research. With the power paradigm shifting from a heroic view of leaders to a more dispersed view of power, distributed leadership and teacher leadership were also highly recognized. In response to the international context, leadership for learning, which includes elements of instructional leadership, transformational leadership, and shared leadership, has gained global attention in the new millennium.
(2) Retrospective view of school leadership research
Systematic reviews did not appear in the field of educational administration until the 1980s. EPPI-Centre (2012) indicated the four key features of systematic reviews. First, a high quality systematic review is explicit and is conducted using transparent methods. Second, it follows a standard set of stages. Third, the review is accountable, replicable, and updateable. Fourth, users should be involved to ensure reports are relevant and useful. The elements of reviews include the central topics of interest, guiding questions, and goals; a conceptual perspective for guiding the review’s selection, evaluation, and interpretation of the studies; sources and types of data; data evaluation and analysis; and the major results of the review (Hallinger, 2014). However, according to Hallinger’s study in 2014, only eight reviews met these criteria. Of the eight studies, some used critical synthesis, some adopted meta-analysis, and some employed both. In recent years, network analysis, data mining, and bibliometric analysis are increasingly being applied in systematic reviews.
In addition to a greater diversity in methods, the regions under review have expanded from the United States and United Kingdom to many other regions. This development can be attributed to Hallinger’s effort to initiate international collaboration to build the knowledge base of educational leadership in Asia. Because of the growing interest in the academic development in non-Western countries, he promoted the use of systematic reviews to examine studies in Asia, Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Central and South America, which resulted in more than 30 systematic reviews on educational leadership and management.
A wide range of research topics is a prominent feature of educational leadership and management research. Five topics that have gained frequent attention are social justice, female leadership, school leadership preparation and development, trust, and instruction and instructional leadership. The following are the topics of frontier research in this field: principal, school leadership, and student achievement; distributed leadership, instructional leadership, teacher learning, accountability, school improvement, school reform, and leadership development; and race, justice, and urban education.
In Taiwan, research reviews on educational leadership are scant. According to Lin’s (2000) review, only a few studies have focused on the impact of principals on students. Pan’s (2010) review indicated that of all the educational leadership studies in government-funded projects and journals, 70% of the topics were related to principals’ leadership styles and behaviors. The distribution of the research topics was not sufficiently diversified to reflect global academic development.
4. Research method
This study used bibliometric analysis on the Scopus database to analyze Taiwanese school leadership research. The review process was based on the steps of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) developed by Moher et al. (2009). After the process of screening, identification, eligibility determination, and inclusion, 95 papers were included for analysis. Descriptive analysis, citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis of keywords, and co-citation analysis were conducted to address the research questions.
5. Research findings
The study had the following three key findings: (1) Concerning the volume of publication in journals, the first English paper on Taiwanese school leadership research did not appear until 2001. Although the promotion of the world university rankings and the launch of the Top University Project have changed the trend of solely using Chinese for academic writing, the number of English studies on school leadership remains limited. Moreover, only 14.7% of papers are published in the core journals of education leadership and management. (2) A citation analysis revealed that the international visibility of Taiwanese school leadership research is low. The average number of papers of the 10 most cited Taiwanese scholars is 3.5, and they have been cited an average of 45.2 times. The number of citations of Taiwanese scholars is 3.33 times less than that of African educational leadership research and 11.78 times less than that of research on three emerging regions. (3) The research topics selected by Taiwanese scholars may highlight international academic development; however, some underdeveloped topics remain such as social justice leadership, organizational theory, institutional theory, and social capital. The current co-citation analysis revealed the four schools of thought of Taiwanese school leadership, namely leadership for learning, distributed forms of leadership, leadership behavior and its impact, and social network.
6. Contributions
Systematic reviews on school leadership are scarce in Taiwan. The present study conducted a bibliometric analysis to examine the development and features of Taiwanese school leadership literature which is innovative in the research method. The connection between Taiwanese studies on school leadership research and global scholarship has seldom been addressed in relevant research. The current analysis presents the development of Taiwanese school leadership and its connection with global trends, providing critical insights and directions for future research on school leadership in Taiwan.
7. Implications
The present findings indicate the future direction of Taiwanese academic development in the field of educational administration. First, publishing more research in English can help increase the international impact of Taiwanese scholars. Greater exposure in English publications can highlight the fruitful outcome of Taiwanese school leadership research internationally. Building the academic connections between Taiwan and other countries will also be beneficial. Second, the current study identified a gap between Taiwanese school leadership research and the global trend. Including more diversified topics may help broaden the scope of research. Some topics recommended for future study include social justice leadership, organizational theory, institutional theory, social capital theory, social justice theory, and critical racialism. Third, conducting periodic replication studies using bibliometric analysis may help track the development of Taiwanese school leadership research. In particular, this method allows for a comparison of the distinguishing features of research among different periods. Fourth, a bibliometric analysis on Taiwanese school leadership research published in Chinese would be of considerable value. Taiwan has several literature databases that collect domestic research. However, the data structure provides insufficient information for an effective bibliometric analysis. To maximize the usefulness of these databases, their data structure design merits special consideration.