A Systematic Literature Review of Educational Leadership and U.S. School Shootings: Establishing a Research Agenda

0Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

Background: Educational leadership perspectives are missing from existing literature related to school shootings, which have been dominated instead by experts in criminal justice, law enforcement, and psychology. Purpose: In this article, we systematically review the literature base on educational leadership related to school shootings in the United States to identify gaps and develop an education-specific, leadership-specific research agenda for the United States. Methods: This exploratory-topographical review follows standards for systematic research reviews in educational leadership. Through reviews of 16 core educational leadership journals, and online scholarly search engines for research and keywords, we identify gaps in the current inter-disciplinary literature. Findings: We learned that the research base on school shootings is multidisciplinary, with scholars across seven different fields taking different approaches. Second, we found that while many scholars are addressing the problem of school shootings, the research base on school shootings from education researchers and specifically within the field of educational leadership are limited. Implications: We discuss three ways in which educational leaders and leadership scholars can inform school shooting research via emphasizing relationships, school–community partnerships, and meeting the needs of the marginalized. We propose preliminary recommendations for an education-specific, educational leadership U.S. research agenda, and suggestions for preparation programs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Marshall, J. M., & Clark, B. L. (2023). A Systematic Literature Review of Educational Leadership and U.S. School Shootings: Establishing a Research Agenda. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(3), 594–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231166335

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free