What Can We Learn About Research on Parental Involvement in School? Bibliometric and Thematic Analyses of Academic Journals

Abstract

We present an empirical overview of current research in the area of parental involvement (PI) based on a bibliometric analysis of 544 articles published between 2014 and 2018, and a thematic review of 39 of the Q1-journal articles in the sample, which contributed to a more detailed illustration of the knowledge base of PI research. The findings reveal an ongoing increase in the intensity of research in five distinct foci. The research is shown to be largely urban- and US-centric and dominated by diverse psychological and sociological perspectives. Implications and avenues for future research have been suggested.

Keywords

parental involvement social bibliometric analysis scoping review

Introduction

As an interaction built on trust and collaboration, the relationship between schools and the parents of students presents educators and policy makers with various challenges. It has been an object of academic study since Waller (1932), for whom teachers and parents operated in separate domains. However, all over the world, for several decades, the spheres of home and school have increasingly overlapped (Epstein, 2011), with parents taking on greater responsibility and involvement in their children’s formal education (Hartas, 2015). While there is a growing literature on the parent-school relationship, the field remains inconsistent in its scope and diverse in its theoretical frameworks, definitions and measurements (Bakker & Denessen, 2007; Edwards & Kutaka, 2015; Yamauchi et al., 2017). Using bibliometric and thematic analyses, this study set out, first, to map the field to understand the current directions in which it is developing (approaches, methods, topics), and second, to provide a starting point for our next project. It became clear early on that the number of publications involved was sizeable and increasing rapidly. We therefore narrowed our focus to research relating to Parental Involvement (PI) that was published in the years 2014 to 2018 and present on the Web of Science (WoS) platform. Our review considers the volume and geographical distribution of the knowledge base, research trends, and the variety of dimensions, topics, and conceptual approaches involved.

By mapping a “section” of this extensive area of research and the characteristics of the current literature, our study seeks to offer both an overview of the field as it stands today and, by revealing structural aspects such as key research topics and discipline-specific approaches, an initial framework with which to make sense of it.

Literature Background

In most Western countries, over the 19th and early 20th centuries, the state took on the role of educating and, to some extent, raising, and socializing younger generations, albeit with a clear distinction between the roles of parent and school (Hiatt-Michael, 2008). The advent of mass schooling and debates around the democratization of society following the Second World War brought change, but schools and teachers still found themselves tasked with compensating for the shortcomings of parents and cast as authority figures in a detached relationship with families.¹ In the 1960s and 1970s, ideals of equality and democracy had permeated school systems and parents were given a more participatory role. In the 1980s, the concept of education as a collective duty was gradually superseded by a more competition-based perspective, with the ideology of equality replaced by a philosophy that privileged the individual (Ravn, 2005). Over these decades, the role of parents in their children’s schooling and in the relationship with schools has changed and expanded.

In various countries, these issues have been intensified further by neoliberal educational policies (Chiong & Dimmock, 2020) that have redrawn the power relationships between schools and parents. Parents have acquired an active role in two senses:

(1) They are now viewed as consumers who seek influence within the school setting (López et al., 2012) and expect greater responsibilities in their children’s development (Hartas, 2015).

(2) These policies have occasionally had the opposite outcome to what was intended, specifically among parents from diverse, disadvantaged and minority groups who have resisted and opposed them as they fight for a better education for their children (Lipman, 2011; Schroeder et al., 2018).

While the practices of parental participation are varied (Hill et al., 2018), working class and minority groups have often been silenced, and their distinct forms of participation neglected. Within a cultural frame defined by privileged, white, mainstreaming thinking, determining what constitutes “acceptable” parenthood “lies in the power of the schools and policy makers rather than the parents themselves” (Crozier & Davies, 2007, p. 300). The imposition of a dominant cultural narrative produces racialized relationships which reproduce exclusionary practices at school (Dey & Doyle-Wood, 2006). For example, many teachers engage with culturally and linguistically diverse families with a form of deficit thinking that is “often embedded within traditional forms of school partnerships” (Ishimaru, 2014, p. 189). Alameda-Lawson (2014) asserts that “the search for successful PI strategies [. . .] especially in those low-income school communities [. . .] continues to be minimal, sporadic, or altogether nonexistent. . .” (p. 199). As there are no “one size fits all” solutions (Posey-Maddox & Haley-Lock, 2016), PI theories and practices need to be responsive to diverse social groups, particularly disadvantaged or marginalized groups in urban settings (Williams & Sanchez, 2012). Therefore, while the role of parents is vital in achieving positive relationships with educators, there are also significant challenges associated with the role of teachers, and pre-service and in-service training in developing and sustaining such relationships, particularly in contexts that demand more culturally responsive models of parental participation (Barajas-López & Ishimaru, 2020; Boutte & Johnson, 2014). However, teachers do not yet appear to possess the necessary competencies to nurture the family-school partnership (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2020; Thompson et al., 2017).

Overall, the portrait that emerges from the extant literature can be summarized as follows:

PI is a multidimensional construct, and has not been defined uniformly (e.g., Bakker & Denessen, 2007; Yamauchi et al., 2017).

Schools and teachers have a significant role to play in engaging families in the partnership and require training and support in this challenging and sensitive process (e.g., Addi-Raccah & Grinshtain, 2018; Epstein, 2011; Thompson et al., 2017).

Diverse patterns of PI are found in different arenas (school, home, community) (e.g., Epstein, 2011; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Robinson & Harris, 2014).

The parent-school relationship varies along social lines (age, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, immigration); nevertheless, a certain type of family culture (white middle class) is privileged (e.g., Berkowitz et al., 2021; Boutte & Johnson, 2014; Ferlazzo, 2013; Ishimaru, 2014; Posey-Maddox & Haley-Lock, 2016).

Parents are universally considered active subjects, but there are few efforts to involve and learn from families and recognize their knowledge and competencies (e.g., Boutte & Johnson, 2014; Crozier & Davies, 2007).

Certain aspects of the school-family relationship have yet to be resolved satisfactorily. There are recurrent barriers to PI and targeted/responsive approaches are required that will allow the shift from a deficit narrative to one of collaboration, (e.g., Dusi, 2012; Haneda & Alexander, 2015; He et al., 2017).

Challenges in PI Research

While there is increased interest in PI practices at all levels of education (Kiyama & Harper, 2018), the research landscape remains highly variable. An initial difficulty is created by the inconsistency in how the concept itself is understood and the resultant variety of terminologies.

Parental involvement (PI), here understood as “parental participation in the educational processes and experiences of their children” (Jeynes, 2007, p. 83), encompasses a variety of patterns and activities (Epstein, 2013; Jeynes, 2017). However, “it has become somewhat unclear what exactly is meant by the concept” (Boonk et al., 2018, p. 10). Traditionally, there is a distinction between involvement that takes place in school and home settings (Epstein, 2011; Jeynes, 2018; Robinson & Harris, 2014). Henderson and Mapp (2002) introduce an out-of-school form of PI involving collaboration with community-organizing groups. Some authors have proposed that PI be regarded, beyond engagement with formal schooling, as relating to the “presence” of parents in their children’s education in diverse spaces, including those they create themselves (Theodorou, 2008). With this approach, the literature distinguishes between parental involvement and parental engagement (Epstein, 2013; Goodall, 2018). According to Goodall and Montgomery (2014), there is a continuum with parental involvement at one end and parental engagement at the other. Ferlazzo (2013) contends that parental engagement requires more commitment than PI, although many authors would disagree (Hamlin, 2014). On this question, Jeynes (2018) argues that it is difficult to clarify the terminology used in PI research.

The PI field also encompasses numerous theoretical approaches. We retrieved recent meta-analyses and literature reviews from the Web of Science. Each focuses on a particular issue, for instance PI and academic achievement (Boonk et al., 2018) or PI and literacy attainment. Green’s (2017) comprehensive analysis identifies three research paradigms: positivist epistemologies, interpretive epistemologies, and critical approaches. Yamauchi et al. (2017) identifies four approaches: ecological (Bronfenbrenner in Dotterer & Wehrspann, 2016); overlapping spheres (Epstein, 2011, 2013); social critical theory (Lareau et al., 2016), and the “funds of knowledge approach” (Moll, 2015). However, it concludes that there has been little systematic focus on the various theoretical and conceptual frameworks applied to family-school relationships and that 46.4% of the articles lack a solid theoretical foundation. Focusing on research in urban settings, Boutte and Johnson (2014) identify a similar diversity of approaches, with three paradigms—positivist, ecological, and critical—underpinning PI research in urban communities. They advocate abandoning deficit approaches in favor of practices that create connections between parents/families/communities and schools and give these actors a voice in the school system. While the quantity of PI research has increased, it remains to be understood how the accumulated knowledge can help establish effective practices. Today, with the boundaries between educational institutions and the home more fluid than ever, and collaboration with parents essential for a school’s success (Ma et al., 2014), this has become an acute issue.

Research Framework

Following Hallinger and Kovačević’s (2019) four-dimensional conceptual model of the knowledge base, our study aims to provide a comprehensive mapping that spans the varying landscapes of recent PI research (2014–2018). It looks at: (1) Knowledge “size,” that is, volume of published studies; (2) “Geographical configuration,” in terms of where research originates, which provides some understanding of the geographical distribution of PI knowledge; and (3) Intellectual “structure,” that is, the “scientific domain’s research traditions, their disciplinary composition, influential research topics, and the pattern of their interrelationships” (Zupic & Čater, 2015, p. 438). Our understanding of intellectual structure is based on identifying prominent journals, influential authors, and key topics, as proposed by Hallinger and Kovačević (2019). Their model includes a fourth, temporal dimension, which tracks trends in the literature over time. Our study omits this, as it is concerned with current (2014–2018) PI research.

Mapping PI research can reveal features that are descriptive of the knowledge base. This method that has become frequent, is essential for analyzing the research production of a specific field where there is a large number of studies and accumulated knowledge that makes more difficult to state the art. The analysis, is useful in mapping and identifying topics and the hidden connections between them along with summarizing the fragmented research (Waltman et al., 2010). In PI field, this is significant for decision making and practice that have not been fully examined, setting new directions for the future knowledge production and leading to mutual fertilization between researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. In this study, we also go a step further than Hallinger and Kovačević (2019), by including a thematic analysis. As argued by Zupic and Čater (2015), by offering additional information, bibliometric methods can complement traditional methods within a structured review. While a bibliometric approach makes it possible to handle an enormous quantity of data, thematic analysis offers a deeper understanding of the knowledge and insights into its substantive content. In an area as extensive as PI research, it can prove beneficial to combine data from bibliometric analysis and thematic analysis to achieve a comprehensive, in-depth view of the field. Figure 1 illustrates our research framework.

Figure 1.

Research framework.

Methodology

Our review used bibliometric analysis to map the knowledge base of PI. We then supplemented this initial analysis with an illustrative, thematic analysis based on a scoping review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) of a sample of articles from leading journals (Q1/ranked in the top 25% for their category on the Thompson WoS platform based on impact factors, and considered the most prestigious journals in their subject area). Bibliometric instruments allow researchers to assess and analyze research output based on statistical analyses of large numbers of publications and research. Using attributes such as journal titles, countries of origin, citations, authors, and keywords, researchers can map the state of the field and reveal trends across areas of research (Karakuş, 2018; Lee et al., 2018). Bibliometric analysis includes descriptive methods (e.g., the number of items published by journals) and visualizations offering spatial representations of the relationships between attributes. Visualizations are considered a particularly effective way of mapping the intellectual structure of a field, as they can reveal established and emerging areas and identify influential authors (Lee et al., 2018). Visualizations can be based on bibliographic coupling (Karakuş, 2018), content relationships between publications (co-citation), and the network of themes and their relationships (co-word analysis) that constitute the conceptual space of the field’s various domains. To analyze co-citations, and for co-word analysis, we used VOSviewer (Van Eck et al., 2017), a software package that produces accessible, easy to interpret maps and finds extensive use in multiple fields (e.g., psychology, management). We also conducted several descriptive analyses to gauge the “knowledge size” of current PI research and related journals. Science mapping is a well-established methodology in various fields but has only recently been employed in education (Hallinger & Kovačević, 2019).

Bibliometric analysis is not without its limitations: the findings depend on cited references, but it is impossible to establish why a particular publication was cited (Chai & Xiao, 2012), that is, whether to confirm/support or to challenge its conclusions; the analysis cannot effectively capture the quality of publications (Nafade et al., 2018). It is heavily based on influential works/authors and relies on citation and co-citation analysis. As such, recent articles, which may prove to be influential, might not appear in a picture of even “current” research (Hossain et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2019). Finally, as Zupic and Čater (2015, p. 458) argue: “bibliometric methods are no substitute for extensive reading and synthesis [. . .] it is up to the researcher and their knowledge of the field to interpret the findings—which is the hard part” and time consuming.

Accordingly, using the same selection criteria as for the bibliometric analysis, we conducted a minor scoping review of articles published in leading (Q1) journals. Whereas a traditional, first generation (Pope et al., 2007) literature review surveys publications on a particular subject as a way of mapping the state of the field (ODLIS, 2013), drawing attention to significant works, a scoping review “provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature” (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 101). Because this method aims to identify the nature and extent of research material, the most common definition refers “to ‘mapping’, a process of summarizing a range of evidence in order to convey the breadth and depth of a field” (Levac et al., 2010, p. 1). Further, a scoping review aims to chart existing studies—that is, “to map evidence in relation to time (when it was published), location (country), source” (The Johanna Briggs Institute, 2015, p. 6)—by following rigorous, pre-defined guidelines.

According to Arksey and O’Malley (2005, p. 21), scoping reviews make it possible to:

(1) Examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity;

(2) Determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review;

(3) Summarize and disseminate research findings to policy makers, practitioners, and consumers;

(4) Identify gaps in the existing literature.

A scoping review offers a preliminary assessment of the available literature and is generally intended to guide the design of a subsequent systematic review of the academic and/or gray literature (Grant & Booth, 2009; Levac et al., 2010; The Johanna Briggs Institute, 2015). It allows researchers to identify and shape the research question and, crucially, the criteria for inclusion with greater precision (Peters et al., 2015). This is important when there is no existing comprehensive review of the literature (https://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/coverage). In our case, we were initially interested in understanding the range of topics addressed in current PI research (point 1 in Askey and O’Malley’s list, above).

Combining bibliometric analysis and a scoping review yields complementary forms of data. Using VOSviewer, it is possible to work on a large quantity of data that offers a broader picture of the field and its dominant trends (e.g., number of articles published, most-studied topics). A scoping review-based thematic analysis offers an in-depth look at these trends beyond a purely quantitative understanding, helping to compensate for the limitations of bibliometric analysis.

Paper Selection

For our study, we worked with articles on the WoS platform, a curated collection of over 21,000 high-quality, peer-reviewed journals published worldwide in over 250 science, social sciences, and humanities disciplines since 1960 (https://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/coverage). It is a highly regarded resource that has a long history of use in research reviews (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016; Zupic & Čater, 2015) and offers the world’s most trusted citation index for scientific and academic research (Karakuş, 2018).

The retrieval and analysis of the articles were conducted in six stages (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

A flow chart of the method.

A preliminary search was conducted using the title, abstract and keywords fields in education and educational research journals from the period 1968 to 2018. As is standard in scoping reviews, selection criteria had been established in advance:

(1) Limited to articles published in the “WoS.”

(2) To include relevant literature, the following key words were used: “Parent* engagement” OR “Parent* empowerment” OR “Parent-teacher cooperation” OR “Parent-teacher relationship*” OR “Parent* entrepreneurship” OR “Parent* involvement” OR “Parent-school partnership” OR “Parent-school collaboration.”²

(3) Theory-focused articles and articles based on empirical research were accepted.

(4) The articles would be in English as the lingua franca of international research (<3% of the articles were non-English, e.g., in Spanish, French, Portuguese).

(5) Peer-reviewed articles only.

(6) For the qualitative phase, we added another criterion: retrieved articles published in leading (Q1) Journals only.

Using these criteria, our search yielded 1,181³ articles, which we took as an initial representation of the “knowledge size” of the PI field. The data for each article included author name(s), author affiliation, article title, keywords, abstracts, and various citation data.

Figure 3 shows the upward trend over recent decades in the number of articles published annually. Up to 2014, the year-by-year increase is moderate (39–44 between 2010 and 2011, a 5% increase). After 2014, it is steeper (10% each year), with a large quantity of research published in a short time. Specifically, of 1,181 articles, 544 (46%) date from 2014 to 2018, suggesting that PI can be regarded as an emerging research subject. Given the rapid rate of increase in research in this area, we decided that a review of a limited time frame (the most recent 5-year period) would provide a more meaningful snapshot of the current state of the field.

Figure 3.

Cumulative percentage of articles on PI based on the web of science platform (1968–2018).

For a more detailed picture of the topics that emerged in the bibliometric analyses, we narrowed our attention within the previous sample of articles (n = 544) to those published in leading, peer reviewed journals (Q1), a total of 79 articles. A thematic review was conducted on a randomly selected group representing half of these (n = 39, 49%).⁴ Each article was coded in terms of pre-defined characteristics (see below).

Findings

This section presents findings for: (1) the bibliometric analysis of the whole sample (n = 544); and (2) the thematic analysis of the randomly selected sample of Q1-journal articles (n = 39).

Bibliometric Analysis

For our sample of 544 papers, the analysis revealed:

Geographical configuration

The analysis of the countries where the authors work, which we treated as a proxy for the countries in which PI research is based, revealed that 49% of the articles are from the United States. The rest are from a range of countries around the globe (Canada, Mexico, Israel, Belgium, Ireland, Norway, China, South Korea, Taiwan, or South Africa), although the numbers for these other countries are low, in some cases only one. Further, in 136 articles where the type of community was reported, most (83%) relate to urban locations or schools.

Intellectual structure

In terms of the intellectual structure of current PI research, we took our lead from Hallinger and Kovačević (2019), focusing on (1) the distribution of material across the journals, (2) leading/influential authors, and (3) prominent research topics.

Distribution across journals

Regarding the distribution of PI research across different journals, we identified around 200 titles in which at least one PI article had been published during the last five calendar years, a high figure for 544 articles.

Although all the journals were included in all the analyses, due to the large number of titles (200), in Figure 4 we indicate only those that published five or more PI-related articles between 2014 and 2018. This runs to 32 titles. In the other 168, the number of relevant articles was smaller, with 99 of them publishing just one. This suggests a high level of journal publication diversity and reflects the many academic disciplines and areas of research that touch on PI: in addition to general education journals (e.g., Journal of Educational Research or American Educational Research Journal), there are discipline-specific journals from areas including sociology (British Journal of Sociology of Education), psychology (Educational Psychology), and urban studies (Urban Education), and titles specializing in specific areas of education (School Community Journal) or early childhood, although there is no prominent journal for the field of PI.

Figure 4.

Articles’ distribution by journal (in numbers).

Influential authors

Using VOSviewer, we conducted an Author Co-Citation Analysis (ACA), generating an “author co-citation network” based on authors cited in the publications’ reference lists. The ACA maps the influence that certain authors have in the field (Zhao & Strotmann, 2008) and groups authors who broadly share theoretical or conceptual approaches in colored clusters (White & Griffith, 1981). The ACA can help identify links between disciplines and reveal subtle forms of academic integration and communication between authors. In ACA, the data reflects the number of times that a pair of authors is cited together in articles, regardless of which works are cited (Wang et al., 2018). Our analysis employed a fractional-counting methodology, which takes into account the number of authors listed for each article, rather than the more common full-counting methodology (Van Eck & Waltman, 2014).

In total, 15,042 authors were cited in the 544 documents. Of these, the 100 most cited authors with at least 20 author co-citations⁵ are shown in Figure 5. These authors are considered to have influenced current research. Here, co-citation represents the frequency with which two authors from the existing literature are cited together in current PI-related publications. In Figure 5, each node represents an author. The size of the node reflects the number of author co-citations in the 544 documents. The larger the node, the greater the influence the author is understood to have had on current PI research. The thickness of the link between two nodes reflects the number of times those authors have been co-cited.

Figure 5.

Author’s co-citation network in PI research published between 2014 and 2018.

Using VOSviewer, we identified the five authors cited most in the reference lists of our sample articles. The most cited, Epstein (424 citations, 362 total links), is at the center of the map. Epstein’s contribution to the establishment and development of PI as a field is significant and ongoing, and her contributions on the overlap of school, family, and community cover a variety of subjects. The other most influential authors are: Jeynes (307 citations, 250 links) who has published several meta-analyses on PI; Hoover-Dempsey (225 citations, 205 links) with her theoretical model of the PI process; Lareau (184 citations, and 166 links) with her seminal work on class difference and school-family relations; and Hill (148 citations, 140 links), who is known for her research on effective parental strategies for promoting student outcomes, and her focus on minority groups. Figure 5 also features five distinct clusters, each representing a group of authors with common conceptual approaches or interests. The density of links between clusters suggests that there is some relationship between the different approaches. The clusters are as follows:

(1) The large (red) cluster in the upper-middle part of the map includes researchers who deal with aspects of parent-school relations, for example, outreach practices or the effect of PI on school and student outcomes and behavior. Jeynes, with his meta-analyses work on the links between patterns of parental involvement and outcomes in children, is at the center. Another noteworthy author who has explored PI and academic achievement is Fan. This cluster includes authors from multiple disciplines, for instance sociologists, and psychologists.

(2) The (green) cluster midway up the right side includes researchers who approach PI from a critical sociological perspective. Prominent are Bourdieu’s cultural capital approach and Lareau’s influential work, expanding on Bourdieu’s, on parents and social reproduction.

(3) The principal authors in the (blue) cluster at the bottom left are Hoover-Dempsey and Hill. This cluster is associated with psychology, with an emphasis on developmental psychology and examining parents’ motivations and beliefs about PI. Social psychology is another area of focus, particularly questions of self-efficacy and social-learning theory.

(4) The (yellow) cluster at the upper left is also psychology heavy. It is associated with the ecological framework developed by Bronfenbrenner and interest in the way relations between home and school relate to children’s development (e.g., Sénéchal and her home literacy model).

(5) The (purple) cluster at the bottom center focuses on sociological perspectives and exploring modes of interrelation between parents from different social backgrounds and schools and the community. Representative of this cluster is Epstein’s theory of overlapping spheres of influence and framework of six types of involvement. Although it is the smallest cluster, Epstein has extensive links with the other four and is identified as the leading and most influential author in the field of PI.

Prominent research topics

To establish the most prominent themes in PI research, we conducted a co-word analysis, which allowed us to identify and map dominant concepts/terms employed by the greatest number of researchers (Chen et al., 2016). According to Khasseh et al. (2017), co-word analysis “is used to determine research frontiers in academic disciplines and explore knowledge structures in various research fields” (p. 706). Co-word analysis examines the relationships between words in the article titles and abstracts, making it possible to chart central concepts and themes that emerge from the terms used in the field, and the relationships between them. To do this, VOSviewer combines a text mining function with mapping and clustering processes to examine co-citation networks and co-occurrences of research terms (Khasseh et al., 2017; Van Eck & Waltman, 2014; Waltman et al., 2010). Figure 6 maps out the network of the terms with the greatest level of co-occurrence in the titles and abstracts of our sample. The terms were selected from a list of 9,750 terms, 144 of which reached the threshold of at least 10 co-occurrences in our sample (VOSviewer, 2015).

Figure 6.

The social network of co-occurrence words (2014–2018).

In Figure 6, each term is represented by a node. The size of a node reflects the frequency with which the term appears in the titles and abstracts (each term being counted only once for each article it appears in): the higher the frequency, the larger the node. The thickness of the line linking two nodes reflects the closeness of connections between terms, with thicker lines indicating closer semantic relationships (Chen et al., 2016). As the larger nodes indicate, the most popular key terms in current PI literature are achievements, community, skills, early childhood, and socioeconomic status. These terms emerged independently of the keywords used to select articles for review, which were established a priori. As such, their prominence can be taken as an indication of their centrality within the PI literature. Based on the distances between these terms, we see that skills and early childhood are frequently discussed together, as are socioeconomic status and achievement, but that community is not discussed as much in tandem with the other four terms. Here too, the nodes are organized into different colored clusters, indicating terms that are frequently mentioned together and have a common theme. These clusters are discussed below.

A “Combined” Analysis

The co-word analysis described above allowed the researchers to identify the four most prominent areas of subject matter in recent PI research. For a more in-depth insight, and to reveal topics that are still at the margins, we carried out an inductive, thematic analysis on 39 randomly-selected articles from among the Q1 article sample. Based on the titles and abstracts, we assigned each article to one of the four clusters that emerged from the co-word analysis. Working independently, two researchers read the selected articles, developed the framework for the data charting and charted the data (Levac et al., 2010) with regard to the following parameters (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005): title, author(s), year, context, aims, methodology/methods, sample, outcomes, key findings related to the review question. We then carried out an inductive thematic analysis on the same 39 articles to identify overarching themes (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003), with categories and names for categories emerging from the data themselves. The thematic techniques included: line-by-line coding performed independently by each researcher; condensing these codes into themes and comparing the results. The main topics were discussed among all the authors, who set out a final version of the themes. We then summarized and organized the results in a thematic presentation. These data, which complement and add to the co-word analysis results, were designed to summarize and illustrate the most important themes for each cluster, but not to digest the main findings or assess the quality of the articles themselves. Nor did we attempt to evaluate the “weight” of evidence, as would be the case with a systematic review. The results of this thematic analysis, as combined with the four clusters that emerged from the co-word analysis (see Figure 6) can be summarized as follows:

(1) Policy and administration. The red cluster at the right of the map can be regarded as the policy and administration cluster. It is the most clearly discrete of the clusters, suggesting that these issues are being examined independently of other questions. It includes 26 terms including action, administrator, advocacy, collaboration, community, decision making, leadership, practitioner, responsibility, trust, and urban schools, reflecting two focal points in the research: (a) relationships between parents, urban schools, and communities; (b) the role of senior school management regarding relations/interactions with parents. Prominent terms in this cluster include responsibility, trust, and power, reflecting the varied types of relationship that can affect PI in different settings.

Ten Q1-journal articles, of which nine relate to empirical studies using a range of methods, were assigned to this cluster and subjected to the inductive thematic analysis. They reflect the dominance of US-based research (with two articles based in other countries—Canada and Australia—and one offering comparisons between the US and three other countries). Four of the articles focus on the community-school partnership, PI and its relevance to the experiences and academic performance of children from low SES or ethnic groups in urban/metropolitan contexts (He et al., 2017; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Peck & Reitzug, 2014; Thelamour & Jacobs, 2014). One article considers the role of teachers in advocacy (Haneda & Alexander, 2015) while another focuses on educators’ personal experiences of PI and their perceptions of collaborating with families in Canada (Winder & Corter, 2016).

In an Australian-based study, Elliott and Drummond (2017) extend the concept of PI into the community, focusing on physical activities as an indication of PI outside the school. Another aspect of community-based PI emerges in Li and Fischer’s (2017) study examining parents’ social networks and their extended involvement in school, with comparisons between advantaged and disadvantaged neighborhoods. Specifically, in terms of PI, students from a migrant background, and their academic experiences and outcomes emerge as key areas of interest. There is a strong focus on the connection between students’ outcomes, including academic performance, and the nature/level of their parents’ involvement (Haneda & Alexander, 2015; He et al., 2017; Robinson et al., 2018; Thelamour & Jacobs, 2014), particularly among students from low SES and minority groups. The researchers advocate facilitating greater PI (Haneda & Alexander, 2015; He et al., 2017; Peck & Reitzug, 2014; Thelamour & Jacobs, 2014) by engaging the knowledge and resources of the families themselves, indicating that collaboration can be more equitable when the school attends to the family’s specific social-cultural context and recognizes the value of its existing resources, as suggested by certain “critical” researchers (Ishimaru et al., 2016). However, the studies also point to two barriers to involvement commonly faced by families from non-dominant demographics (Haneda & Alexander, 2015; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Peck & Reitzug, 2014; Reynolds et al., 2015; Thelamour & Jacobs, 2014). The first comes in the form of the teachers (and/or principals) who are seen to have a positive impact when they provide meaningful support to parents, but a negative one when they hold these children and their parents to unrealistic standards and/or fail to move beyond “deficit thinking” (Haneda & Alexander, 2015; He et al., 2017; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Peck & Reitzug, 2014; Reynolds et al., 2015; Thelamour & Jacobs, 2014). The second barrier is related to the widespread standardization of curricula driven by the marketization of the school system in keeping with the neoliberal paradigm, and how it makes it more difficult for parents and teachers to co-operate in a way that fosters academic success (Haneda & Alexander, 2015; Peck & Reitzug, 2014).

(2) Inequality and social mechanisms. The (green) cluster at the bottom left comprises 20 terms that focus on the social aspects of PI, such as inequality (primarily socioeconomic status, but also differences between the roles of fathers and mothers) and social mechanisms. There is an emphasis on educational opportunities, such as access to educational institutions or school choice at high school and, less frequently, higher education level.

Nine articles, all concerning the US education system, were assigned to this cluster. These used a variety of research methods to explore the question of educational opportunities in a context of increasing social inequality and the proliferation of neoliberal educational policies, which try to control curricula with test-driven methods, standardization, and accountability. The dominant topics that emerged from these nine articles were: the role of social and cultural capital in determining access to, and performance in education, and the level of education reached by students within the US school system. The articles variously consider levels of social, cultural, and economic capital (Lareau et al., 2016) possessed by students from “affluent/very affluent” (Hamilton et al., 2018) and low-income families (Sherraden et al., 2018; Shoji et al., 2014), particularly access to post-secondary education (Bowman et al., 2018; Castleman & Page, 2017; Hamilton et al., 2018; Sherraden et al., 2018). Calzada et al. (2015) investigate socioeconomic and cultural attributes as predictors of PI to understand the factors influencing immigrant parents’ involvement in their children’s education in urban schools. We also find studies focusing on disparities related to socio-cultural and/or economic disadvantages and that involve students from pre-kindergarten (Calzada et al., 2015; Sherraden et al., 2018) to college age (Bowman et al., 2018; Castleman & Page, 2017; Hamilton et al., 2018) together with their parents. Neoliberal policies are enacted through increases to tuition costs, but they are also furthered by the presence of charter (prestige) schools, since school choice (Brown & Makris, 2018; Yettick, 2016) and the rules of the school application “game” (Lareau et al., 2016) favor advantaged families. Accordingly, these articles explore the factors that facilitate or obstruct access to college, for instance how affluent parents are able to influence their children’s college experience and use higher education to retain class advantages (Hamilton et al., 2018). Other studies explore ways of promoting PI to improve college enrollment among low SES families (Bowman et al., 2018; Castleman & Page, 2017; Sherraden et al., 2018).

(3) Schooling. The (blue) cluster at the upper left part of the map is concerned with PI and schooling. It consists of 17 terms that focus on early childhood, basic skills (reading) and language and has two focal areas of research. The first centers on teaching, instruction and learning. The second focuses on involvement activities for parents of young children, such as skill-development and motivation activities, and their relationship with academic performance.

Five Q1-journal articles were relevant to this blue cluster.⁶ Four explore the school experience in the US, while one is concerned with primary teachers in Malawi. All five are centrally concerned with the professional development, expertise and agency of teachers as they relate to: (1) child literacy (Sailors et al., 2014); (2) promoting PI as part of bullying-prevention initiatives (Cecil & Molnar-Main, 2015); and (3) advocating on behalf of immigrant families (Haneda & Alexander, 2015). Some of the articles also examine institutional barriers to involvement faced by low-income parents, and support for minority and/or English-as-a-Second-Language students. The barriers reflect a “deficit thinking” that can undermine children’s performance and the extent of their parents’ involvement. Forms of support include teacher advocacy (Haneda & Alexander, 2015), school support (Niehaus & Adelson, 2014), home-based intervention to promote literacy with parental support (White et al., 2014), promoting PI and working with young English learners to enhance language skills (Niehaus & Adelson, 2014). A third subject area in this cluster concerns the relationships between family involvement in schooling and students’ school performance (Haneda & Alexander, 2015; Niehaus & Adelson, 2014), behavior (Cecil & Molnar-Main, 2015) and academic and social-emotional outcomes (Niehaus & Adelson, 2014). All of the articles looked at kindergarten and elementary schools in urban areas, although Cecil and Molnar-Main (2015) includes suburban and rural schools. The articles also encompass a range of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method research methodologies.

(4) Children’s achievement. The cluster at the left of the map (yellow) is the most widely dispersed. It is centered on children’s achievement, including the individual factors such as motivation that relate to school success, with a distinct focus on math achievement and gender. This cluster is proximal to the area of the schooling cluster that relates to early childhood (homework is close to language and preschool; English to achievement) and to the area of the social aspects of PI cluster that focuses on inequality (gap is close to socioeconomic status).

The heterogeneity of research focusing on student achievement is also reflected in the in-depth analysis of the 12 Q1-journal articles assigned to this cluster. All the articles deal with the school system in the US and students’ educational outcomes, with most using quantitative methods (eight articles). However, there is a variety of other recurring topics: the importance of teachers in promoting (or inhibiting) PI, in terms of children’s outcomes; teachers’ beliefs about factors that influence their students’ academic performance, including those relating to the family (Patterson et al., 2016); teachers’ expectations of family involvement with a particular focus on the parents of English Language Learner students (Wassell et al., 2017). Among the different elements of “teacher engagement,” facilitating discourse with parents emerges as a key responsibility (Borup et al., 2014). Another focal topic is the importance of the teacher-parent partnership for the child’s education, particularly in regard to infant education (Lang et al., 2016) and reducing violence in school (Lesneskie & Block, 2017).

Another topic that emerges in this cluster is the importance of PI in school-based educational programs, with particular focus on challenges such as sex education (in middle school) (Grossman et al., 2014) and preventing bullying (Ostrander et al., 2018) or school absenteeism among kindergarten and elementary-aged students from low SES families (Robinson et al., 2018). Camasso and Jagannathan (2018) focus on a natural and environmental science program that is designed to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds improve science performance, but also to increase PI. Finally, fostering parental engagement among low-income families (SES) is identified as a key consideration in bolstering early-development and learning outcomes (Manz & Bracaliello, 2016) and combating negative educational experiences, poor academic performance (Kim et al., 2014) and the exclusion of parents from the school (Allen & White-Smith, 2018).

In sum, the data charting and the inductive thematic analysis confirm the prominence of US-based authors in the English-language literature on this topic. They also reveal the diversity of methodological approaches that underpin PI research and confirm the plurality of topics suggested by the Co-Word Analysis. Beyond confirming the themes detected by the quantitative process, they flesh them out, revealing a greater level of complexity and illustrating the constituent topics of interest in each of the clusters in more detail and with greater accuracy. We find that articles looking at disadvantaged families and children/students are particularly prevalent (24 articles out of 39), as are articles that adopt critical approaches that challenge the dominant discourse on culture and educational policy (i.e., Allen & White-Smith, 2018). The evidence that current PI research is based on a range of methodologies and addresses different arenas (home, school, and community), a wide range of subjects (e.g., literacy skills, social gap, achievements, educational reform, and policy) and different ages (from early childhood to higher education) is congruent with previous findings (Bakker & Denessen, 2007).

Nonrelevant Articles

Five (out of 39) of the Q1-journal articles did not address PI directly (De los Rios, 2018; Konishi et al., 2018; Lanford & Maruco, 2018; Park & Lee, 2015; Richmond et al., 2014). These articles were included in our sample due to the use of Keywords Plus, words/phrases that frequently appear in titles in an article’s references, but not in the title of the article itself. These are a feature of WoS sources and enhance the power of a cited-reference search by searching across disciplines for articles that have cited references in common (https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/KeyWords-Plus-generation-creation-and-changes?language=en_US.). The inductive analysis allowed us to identify articles with little relevance to PI.

Conclusion

In this study, we set out to survey the current knowledge base in the field of PI. Using bibliometric analysis, we were able to outline the field of PI research and map the dominant topics of interest among researchers, such as emerge from an analysis of a large quantity of articles published in WoS journals between 2014 and 2018. For the minor scoping review, we analyzed 39 articles from Q1 journals. The results indicate that PI is gaining greater attention in education research. This may be a response to the complexity of the educational process, with parents given involvement in the working of the school as a way of improving awareness of and responsiveness to the needs of the community.

One characteristic to emerge from our data set was the great diversity of the journals that have published PI research. These are generally oriented toward the field of education, but intersect with multiple disciplines, in particular related areas of psychology, and sociology. The clusters that emerge in our analysis confirm that these disciplines encompass a range of theoretical approaches, from the ecological and “overlapping spheres of influence” frameworks to critical theory, with its emphasis on social reproduction (Green, 2017; Yamauchi et al., 2017). From amidst this diversity, four overarching themes emerge:

(1) Parent-school relations/interactions, from the perspective of both parents and educators;

(2) PI as related to social inequality and social gaps, with an emphasis on academic success and enrolment in higher education;

(3) PI in respect to skills and language development in early childhood;

(4) PI and students’ educational outcomes and attainments from an early age to higher education with an emphasis on achievement.

The thematic analysis of a selected list of Q1-journal articles reveals that each of these areas encompasses a large range of more specific research topics that were less visible to bibliometric methods in which terms that occur in large numbers are at a distinct advantage, as indicated in the findings regarding school relationships with disadvantaged groups. While this emerged in the bibliometric analysis as a prominent topic (red cluster in Figure 6), the thematic analysis provided a detailed picture of how these relationships are manifested and of the barriers and supporting factors encountered by these communities, all of which are less discernable in the bibliometric analysis. As such, the combination of thematic and bibliometric analysis not only offers a broad overview of the field of PI research, but it also provides clues to possible gaps and specifically the need for research that views its subject through a more critical prism, particularly in the context of urban education (Boutte & Johnson, 2014).

Despite the diversity of the field, professionals in the PI research community share two common interests:

(1) The academic attainment and the experience of education of young children and students (from pre-school to college). Students from low SES, minority, and disadvantaged families are a particular concern, with researchers interested in: (a) the impact of inequality on these students’ progress through school; (b) the factors that have the greatest impact; and (c) forms of intervention that might be effective in promoting access to education and positive outcomes for students. One prominent factor, based on the stated objectives of these articles, is the importance of the family in terms of sociocultural capital, commitment to the children’s education, and levels and forms of PI.

(2) The importance of school leaders/educators (particularly teachers), ongoing professional development in promoting PI (i.e., removing barriers to families from non-dominant groups, work to counter prejudices and improve communication) and the benefits of advocating on behalf of low SES and minority/migrant families. Our findings indicate that interest in the field of PI is continually increasing, with a resultant accumulation of valuable knowledge. It is important that this knowledge be made more accessible and integrated into practitioners’ and teachers’ training programs, since educators have the potential to mitigate social gaps through their approach to PI.

Another way to categorize the most prominent areas of interest in this body of research is as educational-psychological questions (i.e., children’s development and skills) and social factors (social capital, social exclusion, etc.). Going forward, with these two common interests in mind, we can identify a number of potential directions to be pursued—or gaps to be filled—as recommended below.

Recommendations and Future Avenues for Research

Based on our findings, we suggest several future directions for the field of PI. First, PI can be extended beyond school-related issues. Parents are becoming active in their children’s education beyond school, for instance in the provision of extracurricular activities. These efforts are expressions of the parents’ interest in their children’s education and prospects (Sjödin & Roman, 2018), but although they have received some academic attention, it has not been in terms of PI (Park et al., 2011).

PI can also encompass collective parental activities, from participation in PTA/PTO to attempts to influence policy. We also note that the question of training teachers to work with parents, although clearly important, is still a marginal concern in the literature. Indeed, topics in this area were barely detectable in our data set. Finally, although the United States appears to dominate current English-language PI research in the WoS, the PI community is starting to benefit from work in diverse countries.

There is a need for more cross-cultural and comparative studies to enrich what is currently an urban- and US-centric field. Apparently, urban context represents a crucial place where to start to improve PI. All over the world, urban centers are growing, becoming the fulcrum of the life of society, not least due to migratory movement. Cities will again become places of super-diversity (Vertovec, 2007), a factor that often exacerbates issues of inequality, social gaps and social reproduction, and the risk of experiencing what it is like “to be marginal, ignored, superfluous or, foreign; to have one’s name never uttered” (Morrison, 2017, p. 109). Children’s education is one of the principal arenas in which, through the involvement of their parents and communities, the battle against practices of othering and social injustice—the battle to be recognized—might be waged.

Our findings suggest that researchers looking at PI would do well to adopt different cultural lenses and anti-deficit approaches which have begun to emerge in recent years. This kind of research can aid the formulation of policies and practices to support disadvantaged groups and, in doing so, help make our societies more truly democratic: a challenge that calls for the proactive pursuit of international research partnerships.

Limitations

Our review focuses on current publications (the last five calendar years at the time of surveying). However, the data set is selective as it only draws on WoS and specifically education research, excluding special education. It was also restricted to articles, omitting other sources such as books, book chapters, and conference papers. These alternative sources represent a valuable resource for the field of PI that we can assume has influenced current PI research. Our analyses also only included publications in English, which may also introduce bias, although the presence of articles in other languages in WoS is marginal (~3%). In these respects, the review did not examine the entire literature on PI. Having completed this study, we can say that the research on this topic is so vast that this article only reveals a fraction of the whole picture.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Audrey Addi-Raccah

Notes

Author Biographies

Audrey Addi-Raccah (PhD) is associate professor at the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University. She is the head of the Department of Educational Policy and Management and the head of the unit of sociology of education and community. Her research is related to sociology of education and educational management with a focus on educational inequality, school effects and improvement, teachers and school principals’ work and parental-involvement in education. In her research she uses mixed methodological approaches including large scale data. She has published in education and sociology journals.

Paola Dusi (PhD) is an associate professor in Education at the Department of Human Sciences, University of Verona (Italy). Her research is focused on the processes of subjectivation in complex, heterogeneous social contexts, particularly among adolescents, individuals, and families with a migrant background; the phenomenology of recognition, insofar as it is adopted as a fundamental relational and socio-political modality of democratic and egalitarian societies, and as a prerequisite for the emergence of processes of education within the family and at school. Her research topics are: school-families relationship; the dynamic of recognition in educational contexts; intercultural education/competencies. Her studies have been published nationally and international.

Noa Seeberger Tamir, is a doctoral student at Tel Aviv University. Her research focuses on parental involvement in their children’s education. She works as an educational consultant for 10 years and serves as district counselor in the psychological service at the Ministry of education.

References

Addi-Raccah

Grinshtain

(2018). Teachers’ capital in view of intensive parental involvement in school: The case of teachers in high socio-economic status schools in Israel. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 599-619.

Alameda-Lawson

(2014). A pilot study of collective parent engagement and children’s academic achievement. Children & Schools, 36(4), 199-209.

Allen

White-Smith

(2018). “That’s why I say stay in school”: Black mothers’ parental involvement, cultural wealth, and exclusion in their son’s schooling. Urban Education, 53(3), 409-435.

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.

Auduc

J. L.

(2011). Le relazione tra la scuola e le famiglie in Francia. In Dusi

Pati

(Eds.), Corresponsabilita educativa. Scuola e famiglia nella sfida multiculturale: Una prospettiva europea (pp. 173-206). La Scuola.

Bakker

J. T. A.

Denessen

E. J. P. G.

(2007). The concept of parent involvement: Some theoretical and empirical considerations. International Journal about Parents in Education, 1, 188-199.

Barajas-López

Ishimaru

A. M.

(2020). Darles el lugar’: A place for nondominant family knowing in educational equity. Urban Education, 55(1), 38-65.

Berkowitz

Avi Astor

Pineda

Tunac DePedro

K. L.

Weiss

Benbenishty

(2021). Parental involvement and perceptions of school climate in California. Urban Education, 56(3), 393-423.

Boonk

Gijselaers

H. J. M.

Ritzen

Brand-Gruwel

(2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10-30.

10.

Borup

Graham

C. R.

Drysdale

J. S.

(2014). The nature of teacher engagement at an online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793-806.

11.

Boutte

G. S.

Johnson

G. L.

(2014). Community and family involvement in urban education. In Milner

H. R.

Lomotey

(Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 167-187). Routledge.

12.

Bowman

N. A.

Kim

Ingleby

Ford

D. C.

Sibaouih

(2018). Improving college access at low-income high schools? The impact of GEAR UP Iowa on postsecondary enrollment and persistence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 399-419.

13.

Brown

Makris

M. V.

(2018). A different type of charter school: In prestige charters, a rise in cachet equals a decline in access. Journal of Education Policy, 33(1), 85-117.

14.

Calzada

E. J.

Huang

Hernandez

Soriano

Acra

C. F.

Dawson-McClure

Kamboukos

Brotman

(2015). Family and teacher characteristics as predictors of parent involvement in education during early childhood among Afro-Caribbean and Latino immigrant families. Urban Education, 50(7), 870-896.

15.

Camasso

M. J.

Jagannathan

(2018). Nurture thru nature: Creating natural science identities in populations of disadvantaged children through community education partnership. The Journal of Environmental Education, 49(1), 30-42.

16.

Castleman

B. L.

Page

L. C.

(2017). Parental influences on postsecondary decision making: Evidence from a text messaging experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 361-377.

17.

Cecil

Molnar-Main

(2015). Olweus bullying prevention program: Components implemented by elementary classroom and specialist teachers. Journal of School Violence, 14(4), 335-362.

18.

Chai

K. H.

Xiao

(2012). Understanding design research: A bibliometric analysis of design studies (1996–2010). Design Studies, 33(1), 24-43.

19.

Chen

Xie

(2016). Mapping the research trends by co-word analysis based on keywords from funded project. Procedia Computer Science, 91, 547-555.

20.

Chiong

Dimmock

(2020). Building trust: How low-income parents navigate neoliberalism in Singapore’s education system. Comparative Education, 56(110), 1-15.

21.

Crozier

Davies

(2007). Hard to reach parents or hard to reach schools? A discussion of home-school relations, with particular reference to Bangladeshi and Pakistani parents. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 295-313.

22.

De los Ríos

C. V

. (2018). Toward a Corridista consciousness: Learning from one transnational youth’s critical reading, writing, and performance of Mexican Corridos. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(4), 455-471.

23.

DeMatthews

Izquierdo

(2020). Supporting Mexican American immigrant student on the border: A case study of culturally responsive leadership in a dual language elementary school. Urban Education, 55(3) 362-393

24.

Dey

G. J. S.

Doyle-Wood

(2006). Is we who Haffi Ride Di Staam: Critical knowledge/multiple knowings - possibilities, challenges and resistance in curriculum/cultural contexts. In Kanu

(Ed.), Curriculum as cultural practice: Postcolonial imaginations (pp. 151-180). University of Toronto Press.

25.

Dotterer

A. M.

Wehrspann

(2016). Parent involvement and academic outcomes among urban adolescents: Examining the role of school engagement. Educational Psychology, 36(4), 812-830.

26.

Dusi

(2012). The family-school relationship in Europe: A research review. Ceps Journal, 2, 13-34.

27.

Edwards

C. P.

Kutaka

T. S.

(2015). Diverse perspectives of parents, diverse concepts of parent involvement and participation: What can they suggest to researchers? (Working Paper No. 119). Faculty Publications, Department of Child, Youth, and Family Studies.

28.

Elliott

S. K.

Drummond

M. J.

(2017). Parents in youth sport: What happens after the game? Sport, Education and Society, 22(3), 391-406.

29.

Epstein

J. L.

(2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press.

30.

Epstein

J. L.

(2013). Ready or not? Preparing future educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Teaching Education, 24, 115-118.

31.

Ferlazzo

(2013). The difference between parental involvement and parental engagement. Library Media Connection, 31(5), 28.

32.

Goodall

(2018). Leading for parental engagement: Working towards partnership. School Leadership & Management, 38, 143-146.

33.

Goodall

Montgomery

(2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399-410.

34.

Grant

M. J.

Booth

(2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108.

35.

Green

T. L.

(2017). From positivism to critical theory: School-community relations toward community equity literacy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(4), 370-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1253892

36.

Grossman

J. M.

Tracy

A. J.

Charmaraman

Ceder

Erkut

(2014). Protective effects of middle school comprehensive sex education with family involvement. Journal of School Health, 84(11), 739-747.

37.

Hallinger

Kovačević

(2019). A bibliometric review of research on educational administration: Science mapping the literature, 1960 to 2018. Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 335-369.

38.

Hamilton

Roksa

Nielsen

(2018). Providing a “leg up”: Parental involvement and opportunity hoarding in college. Sociology of Education, 91(2), 111-131.

39.

Hamlin

(2014). Keith Robinson and Angel L. Harris: Broken compass: Parental involvement with children’s education. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(8), 1519-1520.

40.

Haneda

Alexander

(2015). ESL teacher advocacy beyond the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 149-158.

41.

Hartas

(2015). Patterns of parental involvement in selected OECD countries: Cross-national analyses of PISA. European Journal of Educational Research, 4(4), 185-195.

42.

Bettez

S. C.

Levin

B. B.

(2017). Imagined community of education: Voices from refugees and immigrants. Urban Education, 52(8), 957-985.

43.

Henderson

A. T.

Mapp

K. L.

(2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. TXSEDL.

44.

Hiatt-Michael

D.B.

(2008). Families, their children’s education, and the public school: An historical review. Marriage & Family Review, 43(1-2), 39-66.

45.

Hill

N. E.

Witherspoon

P. D.

Bartz

(2018). Parental involvement in education during middle school: Perspectives of ethnically diverse parents, teachers, and students. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(1), 12-27.

46.

Hossain

N. U. I.

Dayarathna

V. L.

Nagahi

Jaradat

(2020). Systems thinking: A review and bibliometric analysis. Systems, 8(3), 23.

47.

Ishimaru

A. M.

(2014). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of district-community collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 188-216.

48.

Ishimaru

A. M.

Torres

K. E.

Salvador

J. E.

Lott

Williams

D. M. C.

Tran

(2016). Reinforcing deficit, journeying toward equity: Cultural brokering in family engagement initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 850-882.

49.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82-110.

50.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2017). A meta-analysis: The relationship between parental involvement and Latino student outcomes. Education and Urban Society, 49(1), 4-28.

51.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2018). A practical model for school leaders to encourage parental involvement and parental engagement. School Leadership & Management, 38(2), 147-163.

52.

Karakuş

(2018). Psychological capital research in social sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science (EIJEAS), 4(8), 39-58.

53.

Khasseh

A. A.

Soheili

Moghaddam

H. S.

Chelak

A. M.

(2017). Intellectual structure of knowledge in iMetrics: A co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 53(3), 705-720.

54.

Kim

Mazza

Zwanziger

Henry

(2014). School and behavioral outcomes among inner city children: Five-year follow-up. Urban Education, 49(7), 835-856.

55.

Kiyama

J. M.

Harper

C. E.

(2018). Beyond hovering: A conceptual argument for an inclusive model of family engagement in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 41(3), 365-385.

56.

Konishi

Froyen

L. C.

Skibbe

L. E.

Bowles

R. P.

(2018). Family context and children’s early literacy skills: The role of marriage quality and emotional expressiveness of mothers and fathers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 183-192.

57.

Lanford

Maruco

(2018). When job training is not enough: The cultivation of social capital in career academies. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 617-648.

58.

Lang

S. N.

Tolbert

A. R.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Bonomi

A. E.

(2016). A co-caring framework for infants and toddlers: Applying a model of co-parenting to parent–teacher relationships. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 34, 40-52.

59.

Lareau

Adia Evans

Yee

(2016). The rules of the game and the uncertain transmission of advantage: Middle-class parents’ search for an urban kindergarten. Sociology of Education, 89(4), 279-299.

60.

Lee

T. S.

Lee

Y. S.

Lee

Chang

B. C.

(2018). Analysis of the intellectual structure of human space exploration research using a bibliometric approach: Focus on human related factors. Acta Astronautica, 143, 169-182.

61.

Lesneskie

Block

(2017). School violence: The role of parental and community involvement. Journal of School Violence, 16(4), 426-444.

62.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 69(5), 1-9.

63.

Fischer

M. J.

(2017). Advantaged/disadvantaged school neighborhoods, parental networks, and parental involvement at elementary school. Sociology of Education, 90(4), 355-377.

64.

Lipman

(2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race and the right to the city. Routledge.

65.

López

Madrid

Sisto

(2012). Red light in Chile: Parents participating as consumers of education under global neoliberal policies. In Cuadra-Montiel

(Ed.), Globalization – education and management agendas (pp. 45-74). InTech.

66.

Shen

Krenn

H. Y.

(2014). The relationship between parental involvement and adequate yearly progress among urban, suburban, and rural schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(4), 629-650.

67.

Manz

P. H.

Bracaliello

C. B.

(2016). Expanding home visiting outcomes: Collaborative measurement of parental play beliefs and examination of their association with parents’ involvement in toddler’s learning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 157-167.

68.

Moll

L. C.

(2015). Tapping into the “hidden” home and community resources of students. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(3), 114-117.

69.

Mongeon

Paul-Hus

(2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228.

70.

Morrison

(2017). The origin of others. Harvard University Press.

71.

Nafade

Nash

Huddart

Pande

Gebreselassie

Lienhardt

Pai

(2018). A bibliometric analysis of tuberculosis research, 2007–2016. PloS One, 13(6), e0199706.

72.

Niehaus

Adelson

J. L.

(2014). School support, parental involvement, and academic and social-emotional outcomes for English language learners. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 810-844.

73.

ODLIS (The Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science). (2013). https://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_L.aspx#litreview

74.

Ostrander

Melville

Bryan

J. K.

Letendre

(2018). Proposed modification of a school-wide bully prevention program to support all children. Journal of School Violence, 17(3), 367-380.

75.

Park

Byun

S. Y.

Kim

K. K.

(2011). Parental involvement and students’ cognitive outcomes in Korea: Focusing on private tutoring. Sociology of Education, 84(1), 3-22.

76.

Park

Lee

(2015). School-level determinants of teacher collegial interaction: Evidence from lower secondary schools in England, Finland, South-Korea, and the USA. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, 24-35.

77.

Patterson

Rowett

Hale

Grant

Roberts

Cousans

Martin

(2016). The predictive validity of a situational judgement test and multiple-mini interview for entry into postgraduate training in Australia. BMC Medical Education, 16, 1-8.

78.

Peck

Reitzug

U. C.

(2014). School turnaround fever: The paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49(1), 8-38.

79.

Peters

M. D.

Godfrey

C. M.

Khalil

McInerney

Parker

Soares

C. B.

(2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 141-146.

80.

Pope

Mays

Popay

(2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health evidence: A guide to methods. Open University Press.

81.

Posey-Maddox

Haley-Lock

(2016). One size does not fit all: Understanding parent engagement in the contexts of work, family, and public schooling. Urban Education, 55(5), 671-698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660348

82.

Ravn

(2005). An ambiguous relationship: Challenges and Controversies in the field of family-school-community partnership. In Martínez-Gonzáles

R. A.

del Henar Pérez-Herrero

Rodriguez-Ruiz

(Eds.), Family-school community partnership merging into social development (pp. 453-475). Grupo SM.

83.

Reynolds

A. D.

Crea

T. M.

Medina

Degnan

McRoy

(2015). A mixed-methods case study of parent involvement in an urban high school serving minority students. Urban Education, 50(6), 750-775.

84.

Richmond

T. K.

Milliren

Walls

C. E.

Kawachi

(2014). School social capital and body mass index in the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 84(12), 759-768.

85.

Robinson

Harris

A. L.

(2014). The broken compass: Parental involvement with children’s education. Harvard University Press.

86.

Robinson

C. D.

Lee

M. G.

Dearing

Rogers

(2018). Reducing student absenteeism in the early grades by targeting parental beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1163-1192.

87.

Sailors

Hoffman

J. V.

David Pearson

McClung

Shin

Phiri

L. M.

Saka

(2014). Supporting change in literacy instruction in Malawi. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(2), 209-231.

88.

Sandelowski

Barroso

(2003). Creating metasummaries of qualitative findings. Nursing Research, 52(4), 226-233.

89.

Schroeder

Currin

McCardle

(2018). Mother tongues: The opt out movement’s vocal response to patriarchal, neoliberal education reform. Gender and Education, 30(8), 1001-1018.

90.

Shah

S. H. H.

Lei

Ali

Doronin

Hussain

S. T.

(2019). Prosumption: Bibliometric analysis using HistCite and VOSviewer. Kybernetes, 49(3), 1020-1045.

91.

Sherraden

Clancy

M. M.

Nam

Huang

Kim

Beverly

S. G.

Reyes Mason

Williams Shanks

Wikoff

N. E.

Schreiner

Purnell

J. Q.

(2018). Universal and progressive child development accounts: A policy innovation to reduce educational disparity. Urban Education, 53(6), 806-833.

92.

Shoji

M. N.

Haskins

A. R.

Rangel

D. E.

Sorensen

K. N.

(2014). The emergence of social capital in low-income Latino elementary schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 600-613.

93.

Sjödin

Roman

(2018). Family practices among Swedish parents: Extracurricular activities and social class. European Societies, 20(5), 764-784.

94.

The Johanna Briggs Institute. (2015). Reviewers’ manual 2015. Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. The Johanna Briggs Institute.

95.

Thelamour

Jacobs

D. L.

(2014). Homework practices of English and non-English–speaking parents. Urban Education, 49(5), 528-542.

96.

Theodorou

(2008). Just how involved is ‘involved’? Re-thinking parental involvement through exploring teachers’ perceptions of immigrant families’ school involvement in Cyprus. Ethnography and Education, 3(3), 253-269.

97.

Thompson

Willemse

Mutton

Burn

De Bruïne

(2017). Teacher education and family-school partnerships in different contexts: A cross country analysis of national teacher education frameworks across a range of European countries. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 258-277.

98.

Van Eck

N. J.

Waltman

(2014). CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 802-823.

99.

Van Eck

N. J.

Waltman

Glänzel

(2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053-1070.

100.

Vertovec

(2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024-1054.

101.

Waller

(1932). The sociology of teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

102.

Waltman

Van Eck

N. J.

Noyons

E. C.

(2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629-635.

103.

Wang

Huang

W. B.

(2018). Document-and keyword-based author co-citation analysis. Data and Information Management, 2(2), 70-82.

104.

Wassell

B. A.

Hawrylak

M. F.

Scantlebury

(2017). Barriers, resources, frustrations, and empathy: Teachers’ expectations for family involvement for Latino/a ELL students in urban STEM. Urban Education, 52(10), 1233-1254.

105.

White

H. D.

Griﬃth

B. C.

(1981). Author co-citation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. The Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 32, 163-171.

106.

White

T. G.

Kim

J.S.

Kingston

H.C.

Foster

(2014). Replicating the effects of a teacher-scaffolded voluntary summer reading program: The role of poverty. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1), 5-30.

107.

Williams

Sanchez

(2012). Parental involvement (and uninvolvement) at an inner-city high school. Urban Education, 47(3), 625-652.

108.

Winder

Corter

(2016). The influence of prior experiences on early childhood education students' anticipated work with families. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 133-142.

109.

Yamauchi

L. A.

Ponte

Ratliffe

K. T.

Traynor

(2017). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in research on family–school partnerships. School Community Journal, 27(2), 9-34.

110.

Yettick

(2016). Information is bliss: Information use by school choice participants in Denver. Urban Education, 51(8), 859-890.

111.

Zhao

Strotmann

(2008). Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996–2005: Introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2070-2086.

112.

Zupic

Čater

(2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.