Addi-Raccah Et Al (2021)

1017978
research-article2021
UEXXXX10.1177/00420859211017978Urban EducationAddi-Raccah et al.
Article
Urban Education
What Can We Learn

1–32
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
About Research on sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00420859211017978
https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859211017978
Parental Involvement journals.sagepub.com/home/uex
in School? Bibliometric
and Thematic Analyses
of Academic Journals
Audrey Addi-Raccah1 , Paola Dusi2,

and Noa Seeberger Tamir1
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 GROUP 1
As an interaction built on trust and collaboration, the relationship between
schools and the parents of students presents educators and policy makers with
1
Tel-Aviv University, Israel
2
University of Verona, Veneto, Italy
Corresponding Author:
Audrey Addi-Raccah, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, P.O. Box 39040, Tel-Aviv 6912218,
Israel.
Email: adiun@tauex.tau.ac.il
2 Urban Education 00(0)
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 rela-
tionship, the field remains inconsistent in its scope and diverse in its theoreti-
cal 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 charac-
teristics 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 par-
ent 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 fig-
ures 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 per-
spective, with the ideology of equality replaced by a philosophy that privi-
leged 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.
Addi-Raccah et al. 3
In various countries, these issues have been intensified further by neolib-

eral 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, disadvan-
taged 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 dis-
tinct 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 theo-
ries 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 rela-
tionships 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 sum-
marized as follows:
(1) PI is a multidimensional construct, and has not been defined uni-

formly (e.g., Bakker & Denessen, 2007; Yamauchi et al., 2017).
(2) Schools and teachers have a significant role to play in engaging fami-
lies in the partnership and require training and support in this chal-
lenging and sensitive process (e.g., Addi-Raccah & Grinshtain, 2018;
Epstein, 2011; Thompson et al., 2017).
(3) Diverse patterns of PI are found in different arenas (school, home,
community) (e.g., Epstein, 2011; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Robinson
& Harris, 2014).
(4) The parent-school relationship varies along social lines (age, socio-
economic 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).
(5) Parents are universally considered active subjects, but there are few
efforts to involve and learn from families and recognize their knowl-
edge and competencies (e.g., Boutte & Johnson, 2014; Crozier &
Davies, 2007).
(6) 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).
GROUP 2
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 commu-
nity-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 dis-
tinguishes 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 engage-
ment 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) comprehen-
sive 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 rela-
tionships 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 knowl-
edge; 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 under-
standing 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 knowl-
edge 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 con-
nections 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 analy-
sis. As argued by Zupic and Čater (2015), by offering additional information,
bibliometric methods can complement traditional methods within a struc-
tured 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 exten-
sive 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.
Methodology GROUP 3
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 jour-
nal 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.
Figure 1. Research framework.
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 rela-
tionships (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 acces-
sible, 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 chal-
lenge its conclusions; the analysis cannot effectively capture the quality of pub-
lications (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 anal-
ysis, we conducted a minor scoping review of articles published in leading
(Q1) journals. Whereas a traditional, first generation (Pope et al., 2007) lit-
erature review surveys publications on a particular subject as a way of map-
ping 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 sum-
marizing 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 exist-
ing studies—that is, “to map evidence in relation to time (when it was pub-
lished), 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, prac-
titioners, 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 inclu-
sion with greater precision (Peters et al., 2015). This is important when there
is no existing comprehensive review of the literature (https://clarivate.lib-
guides.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 complemen-
tary 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
Figure 2. A flow chart of the method.
thematic analysis offers an in-depth look at these trends beyond a purely quan-
titative understanding, helping to compensate for the limitations of bibliomet-
ric analysis.
GROUP 4 & 5
Paper Selection
For our study, we worked with articles on the WoS platform, a curated collec-
tion 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).
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 estab-
lished 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 arti-
cles published in leading (Q1) Journals only.
Figure 3. Cumulative percentage of articles on PI based on the web of science

platform (1968–2018).
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, key-
words, 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 moder-
ate (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.
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 sam-
ple 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, Bel-
gium, 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 promi-
nent journal for the field of PI.
Influential authors. Using VOSviewer, we conducted an Author Co-Cita-

tion 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
Figure 4. Articles’ distribution by journal (in numbers).
clusters (White & Griffith, 1981). The ACA can help identify links between
disciplines and reveal subtle forms of academic integration and communica-
tion 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 meth-
odology, which takes into account the number of authors listed for each arti-
cle, 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 refer-
ence 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 establish-
ment and development of PI as a field is significant and ongoing, and her
contributions on the overlap of school, family, and community cover a vari-
ety 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 chil-
dren, 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 psychol-
ogy, 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 per-
spectives 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 research-
ers (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, VOS-
viewer combines a text mining function with mapping and clustering processes
to examine co-citation networks and co-occurrences of research terms (Khas-
seh et al., 2017; Van Eck & Waltman, 2014; Waltman et al., 2010). Figure 6
Figure 6. The social network of co-occurrence words (2014–2018).
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).
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 indi-
cating 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 GROUP 6

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 analy-
sis. Working independently, two researchers read the selected articles, devel-
oped 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 anal-
ysis, as combined with the four clusters that emerged from the co-word anal-
ysis (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, commu-
nity, 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/interac-

tions with parents. Prominent terms in this cluster include responsi-
bility, 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 offer-
ing comparisons between the US and three other countries). Four of the arti-
cles 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 col-
laborating with families in Canada (Winder & Corter, 2016).
In an Australian-based study, Elliott and Drummond (2017) extend the con-
cept 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 stu-
dents’ 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 cur-
ricula 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 fre-
quently, 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 cul-
tural capital in determining access to, and performance in education, and the
level of education reached by students within the US school system. The arti-
cles 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 pre-
dictors of PI to understand the factors influencing immigrant parents’ involve-
ment in their children’s education in urban schools. We also find studies
focusing on disparities related to socio-cultural and/or economic disadvan-
tages 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 fur-
thered by the presence of charter (prestige) schools, since school choice
(Brown & Makris, 2018; Yettick, 2016) and the rules of the school applica-
tion “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 con-
cerned 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 learn-
ing. 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 minor-
ity 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 school-
ing 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, includ-
ing 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 teach-
ers 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’ expec-
tations of family involvement with a particular focus on the parents of English
Language Learner students (Wassell et al., 2017). Among the different ele-
ments of “teacher engagement,” facilitating discourse with parents emerges
as a key responsibility (Borup et al., 2014). Another focal topic is the impor-
tance 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 ele-
mentary-aged students from low SES families (Robinson et al., 2018).
Camasso and Jagannathan (2018) focus on a natural and environmental sci-
ence program that is designed to help students from disadvantaged back-
grounds improve science performance, but also to increase PI. Finally,
fostering parental engagement among low-income families (SES) is identi-
fied as a key consideration in bolstering early-development and learning out-
comes (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 quantita-
tive 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 disadvan-
taged families and children/students are particularly prevalent (24 articles out
of 39), as are articles that adopt critical approaches that challenge the domi-
nant discourse on culture and educational policy (i.e., Allen & White-Smith,
2018). The evidence that current PI research is based on a range of method-
ologies and addresses different arenas (home, school, and community), a
wide range of subjects (e.g., literacy skills, social gap, achievements, educa-
tional reform, and policy) and different ages (from early childhood to higher
education) is congruent with previous findings (Bakker & Denessen, 2007).
Nonrelevant Articles GROUP 6

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 arti-
cle’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://sup-
port.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 jour-
nals between 2014 and 2018. For the minor scoping review, we analyzed 39
articles from Q1 journals. The results indicate that PI is gaining greater atten-
tion 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 par-
ticular 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 over-
arching 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 bib-
liometric 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 com-
bination 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 spe-
cifically 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 commu-
nity 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 great-
est 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, com-
mitment 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 bar-
riers 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 accu-
mulation 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 devel-
opment 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 recom-
mended 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 provi-
sion 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 dom-
inate 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 inequal-
ity, 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 com-
munities, 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 poli-
cies and practices to support disadvantaged groups and, in doing so, help
make our societies more truly democratic: a challenge that calls for the proac-
tive 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 anal-
yses 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.
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 publi-
cation of this article.
ORCID iD
Audrey Addi-Raccah https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2427-8782
Notes
1. Certain countries were ahead of others: in France, the first high-school par-
ent association was founded in 1906 (see, Auduc, 2011, pp. 173−206), while
Denmark saw some parental input in school governance as early as 1933 (Ravn,
2011, pp. 89−111). Even in these countries, the position of parents was a passive
one for many decades.
2. Following a reviewer comment that the term “family” was a conspicuous omis-
sion, we performed the article search again with updated terms. Three articles
were added, indicating an overlap between “parents” and “family” in PI research.
Our bibliometric analysis yielded similar results.
3. All data were retrieved by July 2019.
4. On the random selection of articles, see McInerney et al. (2004). The flow of
scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified
food. Science Communication, 26(1), 44−74.
5. The 100-author figure is employed in many studies, for example, Jeong et al.
(2014). Content-based author co-citation analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1),
197−211.
6. Two papers fit two clusters: Haneda and Alexander (2015) (also in the red
cluster), and Lanford and Maruco (2018) (also in the green cluster). Therefore,
although there were 39 articles, the number of articles in the four clusters adds
up to 41.
References
Addi-Raccah, A., & Grinshtain, Y. (2018). Teachers’ capital in view of intensive
parental involvement in school: The case of teachers in high socio-economic sta-
tus schools in Israel. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 599-619.
Alameda-Lawson, T. (2014). A pilot study of collective parent engagement and chil-
dren’s academic achievement. Children & Schools, 36(4), 199-209.
Allen, Q., & White-Smith, K. (2018). “That’s why I say stay in school”: Black moth-
ers’ parental involvement, cultural wealth, and exclusion in their son’s schooling.
Urban Education, 53(3), 409-435.
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (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 P. Dusi &
L. Pati (Eds.), Corresponsabilita educativa. Scuola e famiglia nella sfida multi-
culturale: 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, F., & Ishimaru, A. M. (2020). Darles el lugar’: A place for nondomi-
nant family knowing in educational equity. Urban Education, 55(1), 38-65.
Berkowitz, R., Avi Astor, R., Pineda, D., Tunac DePedro, K. L., Weiss, E., &
Benbenishty, R. (2021). Parental involvement and perceptions of school climate
in California. Urban Education, 56(3), 393-423.
Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H. J. M., Ritzen, H., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). A review of
the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achieve-
ment. Educational Research Review, 24, 10-30.
Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2014). The nature of teacher engage-
ment at an online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5),
793-806.
Boutte, G. S., & Johnson, G. L. (2014). Community and family involvement in urban
education. In H. R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education
(pp. 167-187). Routledge.
Bowman, N. A., Kim, S., Ingleby, L., Ford, D. C., & Sibaouih, C. (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.
Brown, E., & 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.
Calzada, E. J., Huang, K., Hernandez, M., Soriano, E., Acra, C. F., Dawson-McClure,
S., Kamboukos, D., & Brotman, L. (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.
Camasso, M. J., & Jagannathan, R. (2018). Nurture thru nature: Creating natural sci-
ence identities in populations of disadvantaged children through community edu-
cation partnership. The Journal of Environmental Education, 49(1), 30-42.
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.
Cecil, H., & Molnar-Main, S. (2015). Olweus bullying prevention program:
Components implemented by elementary classroom and specialist teachers.
Journal of School Violence, 14(4), 335-362.
Chai, K. H., & Xiao, X. (2012). Understanding design research: A bibliometric analy-
sis of design studies (1996–2010). Design Studies, 33(1), 24-43.
Chen, X., Chen, J., Wu, D., Xie, Y., & Li, J. (2016). Mapping the research trends by
co-word analysis based on keywords from funded project. Procedia Computer
Science, 91, 547-555.
Chiong, C., & Dimmock, C. (2020). Building trust: How low-income parents navi-
gate neoliberalism in Singapore’s education system. Comparative Education,
56(110), 1-15.
Crozier, G., & Davies, J. (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.
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.
DeMatthews, D., & Izquierdo, E. (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
Dey, G. J. S., & Doyle-Wood, S. (2006). Is we who Haffi Ride Di Staam: Critical
knowledge/multiple knowings - possibilities, challenges and resistance in cur-
riculum/cultural contexts. In Y. Kanu (Ed.), Curriculum as cultural practice:
Postcolonial imaginations (pp. 151-180). University of Toronto Press.
Dotterer, A. M., & Wehrspann, E. (2016). Parent involvement and academic out-
comes among urban adolescents: Examining the role of school engagement.
Educational Psychology, 36(4), 812-830.
Dusi, P. (2012). The family-school relationship in Europe: A research review. Ceps
Journal, 2, 13-34.
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.
Elliott, S. K., & Drummond, M. J. (2017). Parents in youth sport: What happens after
the game? Sport, Education and Society, 22(3), 391-406.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educa-
tors and improving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L. (2013). Ready or not? Preparing future educators for school, family, and
community partnerships. Teaching Education, 24, 115-118.
Ferlazzo, L. (2013). The difference between parental involvement and parental
engagement. Library Media Connection, 31(5), 28.
Goodall, J. (2018). Leading for parental engagement: Working towards partnership.
School Leadership & Management, 38, 143-146.
Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement:
A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399-410.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review
types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal,
26, 91-108.
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
Grossman, J. M., Tracy, A. J., Charmaraman, L., Ceder, I., & Erkut, S. (2014).
Protective effects of middle school comprehensive sex education with family
involvement. Journal of School Health, 84(11), 739-747.
Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J. (2019). A bibliometric review of research on educa-
tional administration: Science mapping the literature, 1960 to 2018. Review of
Educational Research, 89(3), 335-369.
Hamilton, L., Roksa, J., & Nielsen, K. (2018). Providing a “leg up”: Parental involve-
ment and opportunity hoarding in college. Sociology of Education, 91(2), 111-131.
Hamlin, D. (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.
Haneda, M., & Alexander, M. (2015). ESL teacher advocacy beyond the classroom.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 149-158.
Hartas, D. (2015). Patterns of parental involvement in selected OECD countries:
Cross-national analyses of PISA. European Journal of Educational Research,
4(4), 185-195.
He, Y., Bettez, S. C., & Levin, B. B. (2017). Imagined community of education:
Voices from refugees and immigrants. Urban Education, 52(8), 957-985.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of
school, family, and community connections on student achievement. TXSEDL.
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.
Hill, N. E., Witherspoon, P. D., & Bartz, D. (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.
Hossain, N. U. I., Dayarathna, V. L., Nagahi, M., & Jaradat, R. (2020). Systems think-
ing: A review and bibliometric analysis. Systems, 8(3), 23.
Ishimaru, A. M. (2014). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of
district-community collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 188-216.
Ishimaru, A. M., Torres, K. E., Salvador, J. E., Lott, J., Williams, D. M. C., & Tran,
C. (2016). Reinforcing deficit, journeying toward equity: Cultural brokering in
family engagement initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4),
850-882.
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.
Jeynes, W. H. (2017). A meta-analysis: The relationship between parental involve-
ment and Latino student outcomes. Education and Urban Society, 49(1), 4-28.
Jeynes, W. H. (2018). A practical model for school leaders to encourage parental
involvement and parental engagement. School Leadership & Management,
38(2), 147-163.
Karakuş, M. (2018). Psychological capital research in social sciences: A bibliomet-
ric analysis. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science
(EIJEAS), 4(8), 39-58.
Khasseh, A. A., Soheili, F., Moghaddam, H. S., & Chelak, A. M. (2017). Intellectual
structure of knowledge in iMetrics: A co-word analysis. Information Processing
& Management, 53(3), 705-720.
Kim, S., Mazza, J., Zwanziger, J., & Henry, D. (2014). School and behavioral out-
comes among inner city children: Five-year follow-up. Urban Education, 49(7),
835-856.
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.
Konishi, H., 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.
Lanford, M., & Maruco, T. (2018). When job training is not enough: The cultivation
of social capital in career academies. American Educational Research Journal,
55(3), 617-648.
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.
Lareau, A., Adia Evans, S., & Yee, A. (2016). The rules of the game and the uncertain
transmission of advantage: Middle-class parents’ search for an urban kindergar-
ten. Sociology of Education, 89(4), 279-299.
Lee, T. S., Lee, Y. S., Lee, J., & 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.
Lesneskie, E., & Block, S. (2017). School violence: The role of parental and commu-
nity involvement. Journal of School Violence, 16(4), 426-444.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the
methodology. Implementation Science, 69(5), 1-9.
Li, A., & Fischer, M. J. (2017). Advantaged/disadvantaged school neighborhoods,
parental networks, and parental involvement at elementary school. Sociology of
Education, 90(4), 355-377.
Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism,
race and the right to the city. Routledge.
López, V., Madrid, R., & Sisto, V. (2012). Red light in Chile: Parents participating as
consumers of education under global neoliberal policies. In H. Cuadra-Montiel
(Ed.), Globalization – education and management agendas (pp. 45-74). InTech.
Ma, X., Shen, J., & Krenn, H. Y. (2014). The relationship between parental involve-
ment and adequate yearly progress among urban, suburban, and rural schools.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(4), 629-650.
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.
Moll, L. C. (2015). Tapping into the “hidden” home and community resources of
students. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(3), 114-117.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and
scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228.
Morrison, T. (2017). The origin of others. Harvard University Press.
Nafade, V., Nash, M., Huddart, S., Pande, T., Gebreselassie, N., Lienhardt, C., & Pai,
M. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of tuberculosis research, 2007–2016. PloS
One, 13(6), e0199706.
Niehaus, K., & Adelson, J. L. (2014). School support, parental involvement, and aca-
demic and social-emotional outcomes for English language learners. American
Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 810-844.
ODLIS (The Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science). (2013). https://
www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_L.aspx#litreview
Ostrander, J., Melville, A., Bryan, J. K., & Letendre, J. (2018). Proposed modifica-
tion of a school-wide bully prevention program to support all children. Journal of
School Violence, 17(3), 367-380.
Park, H., Byun, S. Y., & Kim, K. K. (2011). Parental involvement and students’ cog-
nitive outcomes in Korea: Focusing on private tutoring. Sociology of Education,
84(1), 3-22.
Park, J., & Lee, J. (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.
Patterson, F., Rowett, E., Hale, R., Grant, M., Roberts, C., Cousans, F., & Martin,
S. (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.
Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. C. (2014). School turnaround fever: The paradoxes of a his-
torical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49(1), 8-38.
Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C.
B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International
Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 141-146.
Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative
health evidence: A guide to methods. Open University Press.
Posey-Maddox, L., & Haley-Lock, A. (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
Ravn, B. (2005). An ambiguous relationship: Challenges and Controversies in the
field of family-school-community partnership. In R. A. Martínez-Gonzáles, M.
del Henar Pérez-Herrero, & B. Rodriguez-Ruiz (Eds.), Family-school community
partnership merging into social development (pp. 453-475). Grupo SM.
Reynolds, A. D., Crea, T. M., Medina, J., Degnan, E., & McRoy, R. (2015). A mixed-
methods case study of parent involvement in an urban high school serving minor-
ity students. Urban Education, 50(6), 750-775.
Richmond, T. K., Milliren, C., Walls, C. E., & Kawachi, I. (2014). School social capi-
tal and body mass index in the national longitudinal study of adolescent health.
Journal of School Health, 84(12), 759-768.
Robinson, K., & Harris, A. L. (2014). The broken compass: Parental involvement
with children’s education. Harvard University Press.
Robinson, C. D., Lee, M. G., Dearing, E., & Rogers, T. (2018). Reducing stu-
dent absenteeism in the early grades by targeting parental beliefs. American
Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1163-1192.
Sailors, M., Hoffman, J. V., David Pearson, P., McClung, N., Shin, J., Phiri, L. M.,
& Saka, T. (2014). Supporting change in literacy instruction in Malawi. Reading
Research Quarterly, 49(2), 209-231.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2003). Creating metasummaries of qualitative find-
ings. Nursing Research, 52(4), 226-233.
Schroeder, S., Currin, E., & McCardle, T. (2018). Mother tongues: The opt out move-
ment’s vocal response to patriarchal, neoliberal education reform. Gender and
Education, 30(8), 1001-1018.
Shah, S. H. H., Lei, S., Ali, M., Doronin, D., & Hussain, S. T. (2019). Prosumption:
Bibliometric analysis using HistCite and VOSviewer. Kybernetes, 49(3),
1020-1045.
Sherraden, M., Clancy, M. M., Nam, Y., Huang, J., Kim, Y., Beverly, S. G., Reyes
Mason, L., Williams Shanks, T., Wikoff, N. E., Schreiner, M., & Purnell, J. Q.
(2018). Universal and progressive child development accounts: A policy innova-
tion to reduce educational disparity. Urban Education, 53(6), 806-833.
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.
Sjödin, D., & Roman, C. (2018). Family practices among Swedish parents:
Extracurricular activities and social class. European Societies, 20(5), 764-784.
The Johanna Briggs Institute. (2015). Reviewers’ manual 2015. Methodology for JBI
scoping reviews. The Johanna Briggs Institute.
Thelamour, B., & Jacobs, D. L. (2014). Homework practices of English and non-
English–speaking parents. Urban Education, 49(5), 528-542.
Theodorou, E. (2008). Just how involved is ‘involved’? Re-thinking parental involve-
ment through exploring teachers’ perceptions of immigrant families’ school
involvement in Cyprus. Ethnography and Education, 3(3), 253-269.
Thompson, I., Willemse, M., Mutton, T., Burn, K., & De Bruïne, E. (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.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for ana-
lyzing and visualizing citation networks. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 802-823.
Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., & Glänzel, W. (2017). Citation-based clustering of pub-
lications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053-
1070.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
30(6), 1024-1054.
Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Waltman, L., 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.
Wang, B., Bu, Y., & Huang, W. B. (2018). Document-and keyword-based author co-
citation analysis. Data and Information Management, 2(2), 70-82.
Wassell, B. A., Hawrylak, M. F., & Scantlebury, K. (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.
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.
White T. G., Kim J.S., Kingston H.C., & Foster L. (2014). Replicating the effects of
a teacher-scaffolded voluntary summer reading program: The role of poverty.
Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1), 5-30.
Williams, T., & Sanchez, B. (2012). Parental involvement (and uninvolvement) at an
inner-city high school. Urban Education, 47(3), 625-652.
Winder, C., & Corter, C. (2016). The influence of prior experiences on early child-
hood education students' anticipated work with families. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 55, 133-142.
Yamauchi, L. A., Ponte, E., Ratliffe, K. T., & Traynor, K. (2017). Theoretical and
conceptual frameworks used in research on family–school partnerships. School
Community Journal, 27(2), 9-34.
Yettick, H. (2016). Information is bliss: Information use by school choice participants
in Denver. Urban Education, 51(8), 859-890.
Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (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.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization.
Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.
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 adoles-
cents, 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 emer-
gence 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 educa-
tional consultant for 10 years and serves as district counselor in the psychological
service at the Ministry of education.

Addi-Raccah Et Al (2021)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addi-Raccah Et Al (2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1017978

What Can We Learn

Audrey Addi-Raccah1 , Paola Dusi2,

various challenges. It has been an object of academic study since Waller

In various countries, these issues have been intensified further by neolib-

(1) PI is a multidimensional construct, and has not been defined uni-

Figure 1. Research framework.

Visualizations are considered a particularly effective way of mapping the

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

A scoping review offers a preliminary assessment of the available literature

Figure 2. A flow chart of the method.

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

Figure 3. Cumulative percentage of articles on PI based on the web of science

Geographical configuration. The analysis of the countries where the authors

Intellectual structure. In terms of the intellectual structure of current PI

Distribution across journals. Regarding the distribution of PI research

Influential authors. Using VOSviewer, we conducted an Author Co-Cita-

Figure 4. Articles’ distribution by journal (in numbers).

Figure 5. Author’s co-citation network in PI research published between 2014

example, outreach practices or the effect of PI on school and student

Prominent research topics. To establish the most prominent themes in PI

Figure 6. The social network of co-occurrence words (2014–2018).

A “Combined” Analysis GROUP 6

the role of senior school management regarding relations/interac-

Ten Q1-journal articles, of which nine relate to empirical studies using a

success, with a distinct focus on math achievement and gender. This

The heterogeneity of research focusing on student achievement is also

Nonrelevant Articles GROUP 6

frameworks to critical theory, with its emphasis on social reproduction

(1) Parent-school relations/interactions, from the perspective of both

(1) The academic attainment and the experience of education of young

and improve communication) and the benefits of advocating on behalf

Recommendations and Future Avenues for

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like