A systematic review of research on educational superintendents

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Population	Focus on the superintendent AND/OR the superintendent in relation to principals, the state or the local board or democracy	Focus on students, teachers, principals, other stakeholders where focus is not on the superintendent
Context	K–12 education, pre-school, primary school, elementary school, secondary school, upper secondary school - Focus on the role of the superintendent	Post-secondary education, higher education, vocational education, college education, other education not part of the national school system Focus on methods, outcomes, or teaching
Item type	Empirical, peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals between 2000 and June 2022	Theoretical studies, editorial review studies, conference papers, not in English, no full text available, chapters in books

Table 2. Articles sorted by main research focus.

Category	Main research focus		N
1	Policy implementation	Andero (2000); Björk and Browne-Ferrigno (2016); Cha (2016); Decman et al. (2018); Filippi and Hackmann (2019); Menna (2010); Oakley et al. (2017); Reingold and Avidov-Ungar (2019); Stewart et al. (2012)	9
2	Contextul issues	Abrego and Pankake (2011); Cox and McLeod (2014); Davis (2000); Hart (2018); Hemmer et al. (2017); Jones and Howley (2009); Margolin (2013)	7
3	General decision-making processes	Brazer et al. (2010); Gawlik and Allen (2020); Melton et al. (2019); Noppe et al. (2013); Opfer and Denmark (2001); Patterson et al. (2006); Touchton and Acker-Hocevar (2011)	7
4	Competence	Davidson et al. (2019); Hyle et al. (2010); McClellan et al. (2008); Petersen and Short (2001); Rapp et al. (2022)	5
5	Gender	Beard (2012); Katz (2012); Polka et al. (2014); Sperandio and Devdas (2015)	4
6	Values, ethics	Alsbury and Whitaker (2007); DeVore and Martin (2008); Langlois (2004); Walker and Kutsyuruba (2020)	4
		Total	36

Table

Category of study designs	Methodological quality criteria
		Yes	No	Articles
Screening questions (for all types)	S1. Are there clear research questions?	x		All 36 included articles
	S2. Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?	x
1. Qualitative	1.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question?	x		Alsbury T L and Whitaker KS (2007), Beard KS (2012), Brazer et al., (2010), Cha SH (2016), Cox and McLeod, (2014), Decman JM, Badgett K, Shaughnessy B et al. (2018), Filippi and Hackmann, (2019), Gawlik and Allen, (2020), Hart WH (2018), Hemmer L, Aguilar I and Fleming K (2018), Hyle AE, Ivory G and McClellan RL (2010), Katz SJ (2012), Langlois (2004), McClellan et al. (2008), Margolin (2013), Melton TD, Reeves L, McBrayer JS et al. (2019), Menna (2010), Opfer VD and Denmark V (2001), Patterson JA, Koenigs A, Mohn G et al. (2006), Reingold and Avidov-Ungar (2019), Touchton and Acker-Hocevar (2011), Walker KD and Kutsyuruba B (2020)
	1.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question?	x
	1.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data?	x
	1.4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data?	x
	1.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation?	x
2. Quantitative randomized controlled trials	2.1. Is randomization appropriately performed?
	2.2. Are the groups comparable at baseline?
	2.3. Are there complete outcome data?
	2.4. Are outcome assessors blinded to the intervention provided?
	2.5 Did the participants adhere to the assigned intervention?
3. Quantitative non-randomized	3.1. Are the participants representative of the target population?
	3.2. Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)?
	3.3. Are there complete outcome data?
	3.4. Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis?
	3.5. During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended?
4. Quantitative descriptive	4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question?	x		Andero, (2000), Björk and Browne-Ferrigno, (2016), Davidson FD, Schwanenberger M and Wiggall R (2019), Davis SH (2000), Noppe R, Yager S, Webb C et al. (2013), Noppe R, Yager S, Webb C et al. (2013), Rapp et al.,(2022), Sperandio and Devdas (2015), Stewart et al. (2012)
	4.2. Is the sample representative of the target population?	x
	4.3. Are the measurements appropriate?	x
	4.4. Is the risk of nonresponse bias low?	x
	4.5. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question?	x
5. Mixed methods	5.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?	x		Abrego and Pankake (2011), DeVore and Martin (2008), Oakley DL, Watkins SG and Sheng BZ (2017), Petersen GJ and Short PM (2001), Polka WS, Litchka PR, Calzi FF et al. (2014),
	5.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?	x
	5.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted?	x
	5.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?	x
	5.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?	x

*Andero, A. (2000). The changing role of school superintendent with regard to curriculum policy and decision making. Education, 121(2), 276.

 Google Scholar

*Björk, L. G., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2016). International perspectives on the micropolitics of the superintendency. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 1(1), 121–156. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2016.1.5

 Google Scholar

*Cha, S. H. (2016). Decentralization in educational governance and its challenges in Korea: Focused on policy conflicts between central and local government in education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(3), 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9448-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Decman, J. M., Badgett, K., Shaughnessy, B., Randall, A., Nixon, L., & Lemley, B. (2018). Organizational leadership through management: Superintendent perceptions. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(6), 997–1013. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217714255

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Filippi, J. R., & Hackmann, D. G. (2019). Leading common core state standards implementation: Lessons from one successful superintendent. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(1), 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1398334

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Menna, A. (2010). Quality of life and standard of living: Planning for conflict or cooperation. Educational Planning, 19(3), 39–53.

 Google Scholar

*Oakley, D. L., Watkins, S. G., & Sheng, B. Z. (2017). Illinois public school superintendents: Influencing state-level education legislation and policy-making in Illinois. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 14(1), 4–18.

 Google Scholar

*Reingold, R., & Avidov-Ungar, O. (2019). “There should be more cooperation in setting the policy”: Israeli stakeholders’ perceptions of their appropriate role in implementing a new educational reform. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(6), 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1529820

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Stewart, C., & Raskin, C., Zielaski, D. (2012). Barriers to district-level educational reform: A statewide study of Minnesota school superintendents. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(3), 2–10.

 Google Scholar

*Abrego, C., & Pankake, A. (2011). The district-wide sustainability of a professional learning community during leadership changes at the superintendency level. Administrative Issues Journal, 1(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.5929/2011.1.1.2

 Google Scholar

*Cox, D., & McLeod, S. (2014). Social media marketing and communications strategies for school superintendents. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(6), 850–868. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2012-0117

 Google Scholar

*Davis, S. H. (2000). Why principals lose their jobs: Comparing the perceptions of principals and superintendents. Journal of School Leadership, 10(1), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460001000104

 Google Scholar

Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

 Google Scholar

*Hemmer, L., Aguilar, I., & Fleming, K. (2017). Visionary planning and the Eagle Ford Shale play: A cross-case study of rural school superintendents as sense-makers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2017.1318959

 Google Scholar

*Jones, K., & Howley, A. (2009). Contextual influences on superintendents’ time usage. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(23), 23. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v17n23.2009

 Google Scholar

*Margolin, I. (2013). Nurturing opportunities for educational leadership: How affordance and leadership interconnect. Higher Education Studies, 3(3), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v3n3p77

 Google Scholar

Brazer, S. D., Rich, W., & Ross, S. A. (2010). Collaborative strategic decision making in school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231011027851

 Google Scholar

*Gawlik, M. A., & Allen, A. (2020). Perceptions of the role of a charter superintendent by charter board members and principals. European Journal of Educational Management, 3(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.12973/eujem.3.1.15

 Google Scholar

*Melton, T. D., Reeves, L., & McBrayer, J. S. (2019). Navigating the politics of the superintendency. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 16(3), 23–37.

 Google Scholar

*Noppe, R., Yager, S., & Webb, C. (2013). Decision-making and problem-solving practices of superintendents confronted by district dilemmas. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1), 103–120.

 Google Scholar

*Opfer, V. D., & Denmark, V. (2001). Sorting out a sense of place: School and school board relationships in the midst of school-based decision making. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje7602_6

 Google Scholar

*Patterson, J. A., Koenigs, A., Mohn, G., & Rasmussen, C. (2006). Working against ourselves: Decision making in a small rural school district. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610652033

 Google Scholar

*Touchton, D., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (2011). Decision-making quandaries that superintendents face in their work in small school districts building democratic communities. Journal of School Public Relations, 32(3), 210–236. https://doi.org/10.3138/jspr.32.3.210

 Google Scholar

*Davidson, F. D., Schwanenberger, M., & Wiggall, R. (2019). What matters most in superintendent evaluation. Education Leadership Review, 20(1), 217–233.

 Google Scholar

*Hyle, A. E., Ivory, G., & McClellan, RL. (2010). Hidden expert knowledge: The knowledge that counts for the small school-district superintendent. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(4), 154–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/194277511000500401

 Google Scholar

*McClellan, R., Ivory, G., & Domínguez, R. (2008). Distribution of influence, communication, and relational mentoring in the US superintendency. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(3), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260802233514

 Google Scholar

*Petersen, G. J., & Short, P. M. (2001). The school board president’s perception of the district superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social style. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 533–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969415

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Rapp, S., Ståhlkrantz, K., & Aktas, V. (2022). Schoolboards’ expectations of the superintendent – A Swedish national survey. Educational Review, 74(6), 1101–1118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1837740

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Beard, K. S. (2012). Making the case for the outlier: Researcher reflections of an African-American female deputy superintendent who decided to close the achievement gap. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.647724

 Google Scholar

*Katz, S. J. (2012). Border crossing: A black woman superintendent builds democratic community in unfamiliar territory. Journal of School Leadership, 22(4), 771–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461202200405

 Google Scholar

*Polka, W. S., Litchka, P. R., Calzi, F. F., Denig, S. J., & Mete, R. E. (2014). Perspectives about living on the horns of dilemmas: An analysis of gender factors related to superintendent decision-making and problem-solving. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2014v9n1a456

 Google Scholar

*Sperandio, J., & Devdas, L. (2015). Staying close to home: Women’s life-choices and the superintendency. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0088

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Alsbury, T. L., & Whitaker, K. S. (2007). Superintendent perspectives and practice of accountability, democratic voice and social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230710732943

 Google Scholar

*DeVore, S., & Bn, M. (2008). Ethical decision-making: Practices of female and male superintendents. Advancing Women in Leadership, 28(1).

 Google Scholar

*Langlois, L. (2004). Responding ethically: Complex decision-making by school district superintendents. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 78–93.

 Google Scholar

*Walker, K. D., & Kutsyuruba, B. (2020). Upgrading downsizing: Ethics and personnel reductions in declining organizations. European Journal of Educational Management, 3(2), 51–65.

 Google Scholar