Researching Race: A Review of Principal Preparation Literature Through the Lens of Critical Race Methodology

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the literature to better understand how the field researched principal preparation in relation to race and racism. Using a critical race theory methodological lens (CRM), we analyzed 36 studies of current candidates or recent graduates with an emphasis on the research design and methods. The research chosen for inclusion was (1) empirical, (2) focused on principal preparation programs in the U.S., (3) focused on preparing candidates around issues related to race and racism, and (4) published between 2012 and 2024. Literature was drawn from three major databases that include journals in the field of educational leadership, ERIC, ProQuest, and Education Full Text, in the summer of 2025. It is important to note that our literature search focusing on peer-reviewed articles poses a limitation in terms of the comprehensiveness of the sampled literature, thus excluding potentially important information sources. To analyze the studies, we created a scoring rubric to assess the degree to which each article addressed each CRM tenet. To assess risk of bias, each article was scored by two authors, and the third author also scored the article if the first two disagreed. Our findings show that focus on race and racism was present in most studies reviewed, and almost half centered on the experiences of candidates of color. However, most of the studies reviewed conformed to traditional research paradigms and methods, as illustrated by choices related to frameworks, methods, and data sources. We offer recommendations for researchers of principal preparation who are interested in more critical work related to race and racism, and we argue for increased opportunities for scholars to meet, discuss, and collaborate across institutions around how they are studying leadership preparation for racial equity. The review is registered through Open Science Framework.

1. Introduction

The historical struggle towards racial equity in the United States continues to challenge K-12 school systems and their leaders. The evolving political climate within the United States and the “racial reckoning” (Bacon, 2023; Hajela, 2022) that occurred as the result of a series of public, violent deaths of Black children and adults require that all institutions look within themselves and examine ways that they perpetuate or challenge racism. K-12 schooling is a critical site for this work, especially as schools have become frequent settings for school shootings, racialized incidents on campuses, and threats targeting both educators and students (Diem & Welton, 2020). The role of principals has emerged as a potential focal point to advance anti-racist work (Diem & Welton, 2020; M. Khalifa, 2012; M. A. Khalifa et al., 2016). Anti-racist principals challenge systemic racism endemic in society and create affirming pedagogical spaces for students and educators of color (Brooks & Arnold, 2013; Diem & Welton, 2020; A. Welton et al., 2019). However, the current political climate is rife with legislation, litigation, and rhetoric challenging not only the importance of addressing racism but even the reality that racism exists. For example, states have passed laws removing initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) (e.g., Alabama’s SB129, which prohibits public educational institutions from maintaining DEI programs).

Amid these tensions, a closer examination of how the research on principal preparation has employed methods that illustrated critical engagement with race and racism is timely. Prior to 2012, a growing body of research has examined a series of significant questions about how to prepare preservice principals to work within this racialized K-12 system (e.g., Capper et al., 2006; Hernandez & McKenzie, 2010; Young & Laible, 2000) that disenfranchises several minoritized student groups, including youth of color, youth in poverty, emergent bilingual students, and those receiving special education services. For example, over two decades ago, Riehl (2000) conducted a systematic review examining principals’ roles in creating more inclusive schools. She argued that principal preparation programs need to help preservice administrators develop moral and epistemological perspectives that facilitate inclusive practices. Relatedly, researchers Jean-Marie et al. (2009) offer that “leadership preparation programs should promote opportunities for critical self-reflection, leadership praxis, critical discourse, and develop critical pedagogy related to issues of ethics, inclusion, democratic schooling, and social justice” (p. 20). This body of research marks a shift from traditional preparation that focused on managerial and instructional aspects of the principalship, with limited or no attention to how racism and other systems of oppression impact K-12 schooling or leadership practice (Brooks & Watson, 2019; A. D. Welton & Diem, 2021).

As race has become a critical and contested focus within principal preparation, K-12 schooling, and society, it is important to understand how it is being researched. Little is known about how researchers have developed and employed specific methods to assess principal candidates’ skills, knowledge, or dispositions related to race and racism. This literature review sheds light on this issue, examining the literature on principal preparation and race from 2012 to 2024. We focus specifically on the “how”—how are researchers examining race and racism in principal leadership programs. Drawing on critical race methodology (D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002), we ask the following: In what ways does the research on principal preparation from 2012 to 2024 employ methods that demonstrate critical engagement with race and racism? In so doing, we aim to contribute to an understanding of how research can be conducted that aligns with leadership preparation efforts to support the development of principal candidates’ anti-racist leadership practice.

1.1. Critical Race Methodology as Conceptual Lens

Critical race methodology (CRM; D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) stems from a theoretical foundation of critical race theory (CRT), calling for the contestation of how race and racial power are constructed in everyday life. CRT developed from Critical Legal Studies (D. Bell, 1995; K. W. Crenshaw et al., 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017), a movement created by Civil Rights lawyers in the 1970s who argued that the law is not color-neutral and instead supports the interests of dominant groups (George, 2021). CRT scholars study the relationship between racism, race, and power.

While CRT has roots in law, it has always been interdisciplinary (D. Bell, 1995), drawing on ideas from radical feminism, European philosophers such as Gramsci and Foucault, and the Black Power and Chicano movements of the United States (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017), as well as fields such as ethnic studies, women’s studies, history, sociology, and others (Ledesma & Calderón, 2015; D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Since CRT’s introduction, various disciplines, including education, have adopted its central tenets.

The emergence of CRM in the field of education was a result of the collective response to the question, “how do we do Critical Race Theory?” (Huber, 2008, p. 159) as scholars worked to develop methodological approaches that could “deconstruct meanings of race and racism” (Parker, 2015, p. 1). While a diverse group themselves, most broadly, critical race methodologists foreground race and racism in ways that they identify and frame the problems they choose to investigate (e.g., Yosso et al., 2009). Early CRM methodologists drew on qualitative methods, as these methods can offer rich counterstories about the lived experiences of people of color (Sablan, 2019; D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). CRM has evolved to using a wider range of methods, such as Critical Racial Spatial Analysis, which visually reveals how race and racism manifest in geographical regions (D. Solórzano & Vélez, 2007). Additionally, CRM has expanded its focus on qualitative and interpretative methods toward including quantitative inquiry (Sung & Coleman, 2019). Quantitative inquiry has often been critiqued for promoting white supremacy agendas or confirming false notions that certain populations are deficient. With its focus on generalizability and sample representativeness, it was also criticized for failing to offer information about specific student populations (Teranishi, 2007), thus often being regarded as antithetical to CRT principles (Sablan, 2019). However, these limitations have been addressed extensively in the work of contemporary QuantCrit scholars and approaches such as CritQuant (Teranishi, 2007), QuantCrit (Gillborn et al., 2018), Quantitative Intersectionality (Covarrubias, 2011), and Critical Race Quantitative Intersectionality (Covarrubias et al., 2018). QuantCrit inquiry examines individual racial groups’ racialized experiences beyond the conventional quantitative technique of using race as a control variable, which failed to examine for whom questions (Van Dusen & Nissen, 2020; Jang, 2018). We now discuss seven tenets of CRM that have been identified and examined by CRM scholars.

1.1.1. Tenet 1: Foregrounding Race and Racism

CRM begins with what many refer to as CRT’s basic premise—race and racism are permanent (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Tate, 1997). Thus, CRM centralizes issues of race and racism in order “to search for some answers to theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and pedagogical questions related to the experiences of people of color” (D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 26). By putting race and racism at the center, CRM researchers show how dominant narratives are embedded with color-neutral and color-evasive assumptions that perpetuate harm toward people of color.

Foregrounding race and racism requires researchers to name race and racism as central to the problems they hope to investigate and to design research studies that will generate data related to race and racism. While this may seem obvious, it is critical to state because much research on topics such as “social justice” often overlooks the specific ways that racism operates (Capper & Young, 2014; Harper, 2012).

1.1.2. Tenet 2: Challenging Traditional Theories and Paradigms

Traditional research paradigms, texts, and theories have been used to position people of color from a deficit lens, perpetuating harmful stereotypes and ignoring the ways that systemic racism and Eurocentric epistemologies function (Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002). CRM calls on researchers to challenge dominant ideologies that are imbued with racism, explicitly rejecting so-called neutral or objective research (Cook & Dixson, 2013; Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002; Delgado Bernal, 1998; D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).

One way CRM challenges traditional paradigms, texts, and theories is by acknowledging the experiential knowledge of people of color as “legitimate, appropriate, and critical” (D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 26). In so doing, scholars look to alternate data sources, including literary analysis, poetry, and the personal experiences of researchers that run counter to positivist and humanist understandings of research. Critical scholars use narrative, including counter-stories, counternarratives, and testimonios, as ways to investigate, interpret, and represent data (D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). According to legal scholars Cho and Westley (2000), “CRT participates in the production of knowledge through the creation of a counter-discourse” (p. 1408), which honors participants’ humanity and generates awareness of voices that are ignored in research by creating new opportunities for the ways researchers present findings (Ledesma & Calderón, 2015). While these forms do not have universally agreed-upon definitions, they share a commitment to documenting the perspectives and experiences of minoritized groups as formal academic research using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (e.g., Covarrubias et al., 2018; Delgado Bernal et al., 2009; Green, 2021; Huber, 2009; Martinez, 2020).

1.1.3. Tenet 3: Proposing Liberatory or Transformative Solutions to Issues of Marginalization

CRM methodologists are committed to advancing research that leads to both the elimination of racism and other forms of oppression and the empowerment of minoritized groups (J. Davis, 2021; D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Stovall, 2021). It is insufficient to create new knowledge; knowledge must be used to “transform those structural and cultural aspects of education” (D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 25) that support racism. Ideally, research offers recommendations and propositions to reimagine systems or structures. These solutions go beyond ensuring more students of color achieve certain outcomes on standardized tests; instead, they offer ways to transform racist conditions within education (J. Davis, 2021).

Scholars who conceptualize their work as praxis, instead of traditional research, often incorporate liberatory or transformative work within their research methods and see their work as action, not merely publications. From the legal field, Yamamoto (1997) introduced the concept of critical race praxis: “critical, pragmatic, socio-legal analysis with political lawyering and community organizing to practice justice by and for racialized communities” (p. 829). Stovall (2016) has applied this concept to his work with children, schools, and communities by working to enact change that directly impacts minoritized youth instead of “abstract theorizing” (p. 278). Moreover, Stovall (2021) argues for the need to engage in race praxis in ways that develop “tangible solutions connected to the material realities of the communities we work with” (p. 291). He engages communities of color in various contexts in their struggles against white supremacy and highlights the need for collective analysis, writing, and action. From the lens of praxis, CRM methodologists “merge research and activism” (S. M. Alemán & Alemán, 2016, p. 289). Participatory action research (PAR) has also evolved as a method in which scholars work with minoritized youth and communities to identify the research problems that are critical to them (e.g., E. Alemán et al., 2015; Bertrand, 2018; Cammarota, 2017; Stovall & Delgado, 2009).

1.1.4. Tenet 4: Centralizing the Experiences of People of Color

CRM focuses on the racialized, gendered, and classed experiences of people of color (Mitra & McCormick, 2017; D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). The experiential knowledge of people of color is recognized as a valuable analytical tool that can challenge deficit-informed “majoritarian stories” that “privilege White, men, the middle/or upper class, and heterosexuals by naming these social locations as natural or normative” (D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 28). CRM’s focus on the experiences of people of color is particularly important when considering the racial landscape of school leadership, which remains disproportionately White. In the 2020–2021 school year, White principals represented 78.4% of all principals nationwide, underscoring their continued dominance in the role. By contrast, principals identified as Black (9.5%), Hispanic (8.7%), and Asian and Pacific Islander (less than 2%) remained markedly underrepresented (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021).

Centering the experiences of people of color requires researchers to develop relationships, often in non-traditional spaces and ways, often through relationship building (e.g., Lee et al., 2020; Mensah, 2019). Close relationships with participants enable opportunities for co-writing or for in-depth case studies, for example, that put participants at the center of research. At the same time, CRM researchers are attuned to ethical considerations in working with minoritized participants to ensure that they are not further minoritized by the research process (Mitra & McCormick, 2017).

1.1.5. Tenet 5: Applying an Interdisciplinary Knowledge Base

Highlighting that systemic racism has been shaped by and is situated in historical and societal contexts, CRM objects to “ahistoricism and the unidisciplinary” (D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 26) approach to race. Thus, CRM urges researchers to place discussions of race and racism in both historical and contemporary contexts and employ interdisciplinary perspectives (e.g., ethnic studies, sociology) to better understand the extent to which racism impacts people of color (D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).

A central reason for the need to bring in an interdisciplinary knowledge base is to contextualize the experiences of participants of color. An interdisciplinary knowledge might involve a review of certain terms and concepts so that the reader has a more complete understanding of what they mean in the current study (e.g., Haywood, 2017). A historical approach to contemporary inequities can support scholars in developing powerful narratives that counter deficit-based interpretations (Kee, 2015). When researchers draw on interdisciplinary knowledge bases to provide a greater context for their work, it becomes clear that contemporary racial challenges have roots in the past, and looking at them as contextualized deepens their import. Without such contextualization, dominant narratives persist that blame people of color for systemic acts (Kee, 2015).

1.1.6. Tenet 6: Employing an Intersectional Approach

Although CRM acknowledges the central role of race and racism, it also emphasizes that other types of subordination (i.e., gender and class discrimination) are inextricably related to racial oppression (Covarrubias, 2011; K. Crenshaw, 1989; D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Thus, CRM views attending to intersectionalities of race, gender, and class as key to interpret, analyze, and address questions regarding the experiences of people of color (D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). K. Crenshaw (1989) illustrates that, since “the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subordinated” (p. 140). Building off of Crenshaw’s work, CRM methodologists look to ways that race interacts with participants’ multiple identities.

The use of an intersectional approach enables scholars to examine how different identities inform participants’ experiences and how intersecting oppressions create challenges that are masked by singular approaches (e.g., P. Bell & Busey, 2021). While intersectionality was initially taken up in qualitative studies, QuanCrit scholars have also looked to consider this central topic from a quantitative lens (e.g., Covarrubias, 2011). QuantCrit scholars have developed approaches that draw on quantitative intersectionality analysis (e.g., Covarrubias, 2011). This type of analysis examines the intersection of race and other types of oppressions (e.g., gender, sexuality, class) to reveal differential impacts of educational contexts and interventions on outcomes depending on participants’ (intersected) identities. CRM is one of several methodological approaches that employ intersectional analysis as a way to “analyze power relations via their intersections,” providing “critical insight and knowledge about social inequality” (Misra et al., 2024, p. 17). Scholarly traditions continue to emerge that examine different aspects of intersectionality (e.g., Annamma et al., 2013; Crump, 2014).

1.1.7. Tenet 7: Engaging in Critical Reflexivity

Researchers’ experiences and identities influence the research they conduct, often referred to as their positionality. According to Milner (2007), “When researchers are not mindful of the enormous role of their own and others’ racialized positionality and cultural ways of knowing, the results can be dangerous to communities and individuals of color” (p. 388). We refer to researchers’ intentional mindfulness as critical reflexivity. From the outset, CRM methodologists engage in research that is not neutral, with goals of the transformation of the status quo; attention to their positionality as part of their research enables the reader to better understand how their positionality informs their work (Haynes et al., 2020; Milner, 2007; Tanksley & Estrada, 2022).

CRM methodologists engage in critical reflexivity around how their positionality influenced various aspects of the research process (e.g., Tanksley & Estrada, 2022). By focusing on their own identities and how they influenced the research process, researchers can advance new theories around ideas that had been framed in color-neutral ways. One concrete way that scholars acknowledge critical reflexivity is through positionality statements, which are often included within the methods section of a research study (e.g., Blaisdell, 2021). In these statements, researchers reflect on their background in relation to the topic, often focusing on their identities (e.g., race, gender, citizenship) or their professional experiences (e.g., teacher, principal, faculty) and how they are situated within power dynamics (Haynes et al., 2020). Whether an explicit statement or embedded throughout an article, attending to critical reflexivity involves naming one’s identities and position toward the subject at hand and then considering how those influence the entire research project. Critical reflexivity is not a one-time moment of writing a positionality statement but an ongoing process of reflection on who a person is as a researcher and individual (Milner, 2007).

1.1.8. Putting the Tenets Together

These tenets provide a framework for understanding CRM and situate it as a methodology. Like all methodologies, CRM is founded on a belief system about what can be known (ontology) and the relationship between the researcher and what can be known (epistemology). As such, methodology is more than methods. Instead, like CRM, a methodology is a broad set of clearly stated beliefs about research processes, which scholars draw on as they make specific choices related to methods.

We now turn to a discussion of how we identified and analyzed the literature in this review, connecting this rich history of CRM to the crucial topic of preparing principals to work in K-12 schools.

2. Methods

This review focused on peer-reviewed empirical research published between 2012 and 2024. We chose this period as the year 2012 observed the tragic death of Trayvon Martin. While he has not been the only unarmed Black teenager who has been killed, the acquittal of George Zimmerman led to the formation of the Black Lives Matter movement and brought attention to racial violence into mainstream discourse. Schools across the country have signage proclaiming that “Black lives matter,” while other schools have encountered protests from teachers and families that such signage discriminatory (Pendharkhar, 2022). As such, school leaders have had to tackle talking about race in new ways. This time period has also been associated with increased immigration, global mobility, and attention to race in national discourse., which has sparked urgency and expanded interest in issues of anti-racist practice in K-12 schooling among scholars in the field of educational leadership (e.g., S. Davis et al., 2005; Diem & Welton, 2020; Hess & Kelly, 2007; Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Strom & Martin, 2017). This literature review builds on the work of educational leadership researchers employing a CRT lens prior to 2012 (e.g., E. Alemán, 2009; Parker & Villalpando, 2007) by focusing on a narrower time period in which race came to the forefront of national conversations in ways that it had not before. Next, we present the process by which we selected articles and analyzed data obtained from the selected studies.

2.1. Article Selection

We adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews of Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol to enhance the procedural transparency of conducting this systematic review of research (Page et al., 2021). PRISMA was developed by researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds to provide a guideline for identifying articles for a literature review; their goal was to enhance the transparency of this process to facilitate the review works of researchers, journal editors, and reviewers. Observing recently updated PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021), subsequent sections present article selection eligibility criteria, information sources, and search process.

2.1.1. Eligibility Criteria

As the focus of this article was to examine the ways in which the field of educational leadership studies principal candidates’ development of anti-racist knowledge, practices, and dispositions, the research chosen for inclusion was (1) empirical, (2) focused on principal preparation programs in the U.S., (3) focused on preparing candidates around issues related to race and racism, and (4) published between 2012 and 2024.

2.1.2. Search Process

To conduct a comprehensive search of the literature, in Summer 2025, we used three major databases that include journals in the field of educational leadership: ERIC, ProQuest, and Education Full Text. For example, Education Full Text includes 229 full-text peer-reviewed journals. To collect articles that fit our research focus, utilizing multiple databases was necessary as each provides a divergent set of subscribed journals, although overlapping search results were feasible. When entering search terms into these databases, we combined two sets of search terms. Specifically, we combined “principal preparation” and “leadership preparation” (the first set) with “racism,” “race,” “social justice,” “culturally responsive,” and “equity” (the second set), using the “AND” operator between the two sets so that the search engines specifically produce the results that include both principal or leadership preparation “and” the five terms, racism, race, social justice, culturally responsive, and equity. While we were interested specifically in race and racism, we chose these additional terms to ensure our search was comprehensive, knowing that studies related to these terms were likely to address race in some fashion.

The PRISMA diagram in Figure 1 summarizes the article selection process. The initial searches using ERIC, ProQuest, and Education Full Text resulted in 1957 articles (346 + 1389 + 222 = 1957). Before screening the 1957 studies, we reviewed the titles and abstracts of each of the initial results and removed 1178 studies with irrelevant topics using our eligibility criteria (e.g., articles addressing conceptual models), producing 179 articles. Out of these 179 articles, we removed 70 duplicates within each of the three authors’ search results and 37 duplicates across the three authors, totaling 107 duplicates removed across the three databases. This initial screening resulted in 72 studies.

We carefully read the remaining 72 studies in full. Following our eligibility criteria, we excluded articles when they focused on the evaluation of the preparation program overall (e.g., Braun et al., 2013) or its curriculum (e.g., Manaseri & Manaseri, 2017), or in cases where race was not examined as the central focus of the inquiry (Marshall & Hernandez, 2013). We also did not include literature reviews (e.g., Roegman et al., 2021), book chapters and doctoral dissertations; conceptual articles (e.g., Gooden & Dantley, 2012), and articles addressing principal preparation outside the U.S. (e.g., Spooner, 2024). We maintained those articles that included both practicing and preservice principals. We also kept studies that included practicing principals reflecting on their own leadership preparation experience. Additionally, we kept articles that did not specifically employ a CRT lens, nor any critical lens. Based on these criteria, we screened out 36 articles, resulting in 36 articles in our review.

2.2. Data Analysis

We conducted two subsequent rounds of coding. The first round of coding collected basic information from the 36 selected articles, including research purpose, research questions, theoretical/conceptual frameworks, methods, data sources, major findings, and conclusions. The second round assessed each article in terms of the extent to which each study met the criteria of CRM. Each criterion was treated independently of the others; articles were not ranked as a whole (see

Table 1. Score of articles based on the seven tenets.

Citations	CRT Methodology Tenets
Author & Year	Foregrounds Race and Racism	Challenges Traditional Research Paradigms, Texts, and Theories	Offers Liberatory or Transformative Solutions	Focuses on the Racialized, Gendered, and Classes Experiences of Students of Color	Uses Interdisciplinary Knowledge Base	Intersectional Approach	Critical Reflexivity
J. G. Allen et al. (2017)	medium	Low	low	low	medium	low	low
Barakat et al. (2019)	low	Low	low	low	medium	low	medium
Barakat et al. (2021)	high	High	low	low	low	low	low
Biolchino (2024)	low	Low	medium	low	low	low	medium
Boske (2012)	low	Medium	medium	medium	low	low	low
Boske (2015)	high	Medium	medium	high	low	medium	medium
Boske et al. (2017)	medium	Medium	medium	low	medium	low	low
Caruthers and Friend (2012)	medium	High	high	high	high	medium	high
Chen et al. (2022)	medium	Low	medium	high	low	medium	high
Diem and Carpenter (2013)	high	High	medium	high	low	medium	medium
Diem et al. (2019)	high	Low	medium	high	low	medium	high
Garza (2020)	medium	High	low	high	low	low	medium
Genao (2016)	medium	High	low	medium	high	low	medium
Gooden et al. (2018)	high	Low	low	medium	low	low	high
Gooden and O’Doherty (2015)	high	High	medium	high	low	high	medium
Grace and Lastrapes (2024)	high	High	medium	high	low	high	high
Guerra et al. (2013)	medium	Low	low	medium	medium	low	medium
Hines (2016)	high	High	medium	low	high	low	low
Huchting and Bickett (2021)	medium	Low	high	high	low	high	low
Jacobs et al. (2013)	high	High	high	high	medium	medium	medium
Jenlink (2014)	low	High	low	low	low	low	low
Jones (2023)	medium	Low	low	low	medium	low	low
Jones and Ringler (2017)	low	Low	low	low	low	low	low
Kemp-Graham (2015)	high	Low	medium	medium	low	high	low
V. Lac (2024)	high	High	medium	high	medium	high	high
V. T. Lac and Diaz (2023)	high	High	high	high	low	medium	high
Mette (2022)	high	Low	medium	low	high	high	low
Miller and Martin (2015)	medium	Low	medium	high	medium	low	low
Morgan and Cieminski (2023)	high	Low	medium	high	medium	medium	low
Nganga and Jamison (2024)	medium	medium	medium	high	medium	high	high
Palmer et al. (2022)	low	Low	medium	low	low	low	medium
Palmer et al. (2019)	low	medium	medium	low	low	low	low
Rasmussen and Raskin (2023)	high	High	high	high	low	medium	high
Robey et al. (2019)	low	Low	low	low	low	low	low
Salazar et al. (2013)	medium	Low	low	low	low	low	low
Waite (2021)	high	High	high	high	high	low	high

).

Criteria of Critical Race Methodology

We created a scoring rubric to assess the degree to which each article addressed each CRM tenet. In the following section, we outline how we operationalized each tenet, informed by previous literature. We discuss where we would be likely to see evidence of it and what low, medium, or high levels of evidence of each tenet would look like (see

Table 2. Operationalizing Guiding CRM Tenets with Strong Examples.

Tenet	Definition	Where Did We Look	Strong Example	Weak Example
Foregrounding race and racism	Articles that put race and racism at the center of the research.	Across the entire study: framing, purpose, design, findings, and discussions	Boske’s (2015) study investigated aspiring school leaders’ meaning-making through sensory reflective practices aimed at interrogating institutional racism.	Race is discussed as one of many variables.
Challenging traditional paradigms and theories	Articles that framed their work as counter to dominant research practices and drew on non-traditional ways of knowing.	Within the framing, data sources and modes of analysis, and use of theories that challenge white supremacy.	Garza’s (2020) study combined narrative inquiry, literary analysis, and testimonios.	Semi-structured interviews.
Proposing liberatory or transformative solutions	Articles that offered recommendations or next steps that were likely to challenge the status quo and transform leadership preparation or practice.	Within implications and recommendations.	Huchting and Bickett’s (2021) qualitative interview study recommendations for principal preparation transformation drew on two different organizational contexts, university preparation and K-12 schooling, to work together to advance social justice leadership.	Programs should add more readings by authors of color.
Centralizing the experiences of students of color	Articles that focused on the racialized, gendered, and classed experiences of principal candidates of color.	Within participants and data sources.	Diem and Carpenter’s (2013) exploration of race-related silences in leadership preparation focused explicitly on participants’ backgrounds and then analyzed their perspectives from a race-conscious lens.	Surveyed only white principal candidates; did not disaggregate findings by race.
Applying an interdisciplinary knowledge base	Articles that relied on interdisciplinary insights outside the field of education in defining racism and analyzing data	Within modes of data analysis and discussion.	Waite (2021) examined how liberatory pedagogical strategies helped aspiring school leaders to develop as anti-racist leaders using Freire’s (1970) concept of conscientization.	Using distributed leadership as a theoretical lens.
Employing an intersectional approach	Articles that considered race alongside other identities.	Within findings and discussion.	Kemp-Graham’s (2015) quantitative analysis of candidates’ awareness of racism and oppression including findings and a discussion of the interactions between ethnicity and gender.	Only focusing on race.
Engaging in critical reflexivity	Articles in which the author/s examined their own identities in relation to the research.	Within methods sections and positionality statements.	Diem et al. (2019) conducted a self-study of their teaching, which included sharing their thinking around their own identities and how that influenced their analysis.	Not identifying the researcher’s connection to the participants, if the study is of their own program, classroom, or graduates.

).

Tenet 1: Foregrounding Race and Racism. In analyzing the articles in relation to the tenet of the centrality of race and racism, we looked to see if the purpose and design of the study included clear language that centralized or addressed race and racism. It was important to see how race and racism were discussed (e.g., representation vs. racialized oppression). For example, some articles mentioned race but did not include racism. Another place to evaluate if the study focused on race and racism was to look at how the authors’ framed the issue that the study was addressing.

We coded articles as high in this tenet if they addressed racism throughout their purpose, design, findings, and discussions. We coded articles as a medium in this tenet if they discussed racism in one of these sections or discussed race only, instead of racism, throughout these sections. We categorized articles as low in this category when race remains as one of many identities (e.g., gender, class) addressed or the study focus was on social justice more broadly. Articles that addressed racism only in the framework or literature review but not in the purpose, analysis, and discussion were also labeled as low in this tenet.

Tenet 2: Challenging Traditional Research Paradigms. In analyzing the articles in relation to the tenet of challenging traditional paradigms, texts, and theories, we looked first for researchers’ explicit framing of their work as counter to dominant research practices. We also examined data sources, looking for expansive ideas of what data can be, as well as data that center on the experiences of people of color. In addition, we considered ways that researchers collected and analyzed data to construct counter-stories, testimonios, and other formats that were developed explicitly to share the experiential knowledge of people of color. Finally, we looked to theories that researchers drew on in developing their studies, identifying explicit theoretical frameworks that challenged white supremacy.

In terms of scoring, we coded articles as being high in this tenet when they indicate (1) explicit challenge to traditional epistemology and conducting research; (2) explicit framing as counter to dominant research practices; or (3) explicit frameworks challenging white supremacy. We coded articles as medium in this category when they employed unconventional data sources or epistemology but indicated no explicit discussion of these as challenging conventional paradigms. We categorized articles as low in this tenet when they adopted traditional research paradigms and epistemologies.

Tenet 3: Offering Liberatory or Transformative Solutions. In analyzing the articles in relation to the tenet of offering liberatory or transformative solutions to subordination, we examined the implications and recommendations sections. We identified potential practices for leadership preparation students, faculty, and programs to act on existing racial injustices, either within leadership preparation or in future leadership practice. We looked specifically for practices that had the potential to transform how leadership preparation or practice was understood and enacted, as well as recommendations related to knowledge or dispositions that researchers connected directly to practice.

We scored studies high when the authors called for a foundational rethinking of the assumptions or purposes of leadership preparation, as well as if the recommendations connected to addressing broader policies and systems beyond a specific program or institution. We scored them as medium if the recommendations called for a revision of a program’s curriculum or pedagogy. Studies were scored low when the researchers recommended performing more of what was already being performed or adding a stand-alone reading or course.

Tenet 4: Centralizing The Experiences of People of Color. In analyzing the articles in relation to the tenet of focusing on the racialized, gendered, and classed experiences of principal candidates of color, we examined data sources to see if they included voices from candidates of color. First, we looked to see if the data collected in each study included principal candidates of color or graduates of color. Then, we examined the articles to see if they incorporated the voices of participants of color in qualitative findings or disaggregated quantitative findings by race.

We categorized articles as high in this tenet if their findings and discussion emphasized the experiences of candidates of color. We coded articles as medium in this category when their findings were disaggregated by candidates’ race, but no explicit discussion was conducted about how the race of the candidates matters. Articles in which findings were not disaggregated by race were coded as low in this tenet.

Tenet 5: Applying an Interdisciplinary Knowledge Base. CRM objects to the unidisciplinary analysis of race and racism and instead contextualizes analysis of race and racism in historical, contemporary as well as multidisciplinary contexts. To analyze how much our sampled articles addressed the tenet of interdisciplinarity, we examined whether studies relied on interdisciplinary insights outside the field of education in defining racism and analyzing data.

The way we operationalized interdisciplinarity as high centered around whether the articles’ discussion and data analysis drew on research or theories external to the field of education. If an article utilized research or theories external to education within their literature review or framework section, we coded it as medium. We coded articles as being low in this tenet if they did not discuss any literature outside of the field of education.

Tenet 6: Employing an Intersectional Approach. In reviewing our sampled articles for the tenet of intersectionality, we looked at methods, theoretical framework, findings, discussion sections, and researcher positionality statements. We considered ways that researchers discussed different candidates’ identities.

We operationalized intersectionality as high when a study’s findings and discussion addressed race and racism in close connection to other types of oppression. We coded studies as medium when they mentioned candidates of color’s race and other identities but did not articulate the way in which these intersected with each other; studies were also coded as medium if they discussed the issue of intersectionality in the theoretical framework or literature review, but not in their findings. We coded articles as low when they did not identify any other aspects of identity.

Tenet 7: Engaging in Critical Reflexivity. To analyze the studies in relation to critical reflexivity, we looked for explicit discussion of how the authors engaged in reflection on identity and positionality in relation to their research. We looked for reflective moments throughout the reviewed articles. Additionally, we looked for positionality statements in which authors reflected on their positionality in relation to their research. In several studies, it seemed likely that the researcher was the instructor or designer of a class or program being taught; we looked closely within methods sections in particular to identify places where authors identified their potentially multiple roles as scholars and practitioners.

We categorized studies as high in critical reflexivity when the researchers made clear their role in the study, such as if they designed the class that the study assessed and reflected on how their role influenced study design; we also categorized studies as high if the researchers included a well-developed positionality statement. We categorized studies as a medium if the role of the researcher within the preparation program was clear or the researchers included a brief sentence about how they had come to the research study. Studies were coded as low when researchers made no reference to their positionality in relation to the topic or showed any evidence of reflexivity.

2.3. Intercoder Agreement

In the second round of coding, each article was read and assessed for each tenet by two researchers in independent spreadsheets with the goal of enhancing intercoder agreement (Campbell et al., 2013). When the two researchers’ scores were the same, that became the final score. When the two researchers’ scores differed, the third author read the article, and the team discussed it, coming to a consensus.

2.4. Our Positionalities

We come to this review from diverse personal and professional backgrounds across a range of identities, including race, ethnicity, nationality, native language, gender, and a range of prior experiences, including educators from different levels of education, different roles, different states, and different countries. These differences are our strength, as our varied and multiple perspectives enabled us to raise questions, challenge each other’s perspectives, and develop a complex reading of this literature. Our relational trust supported our ability to listen to each other, provide critical feedback in conversation and writing, and grow as individuals and as a research team.

Rachel: A former middle school teacher in a mid-sized metropolitan district, working to advance racial equity in schooling has always been the focus of my work in the classroom and as a researcher. As a queer white person working in academia, I am aware of my privileges and the need to learn with and from colleagues of color, as well as from my graduate students of color—who are almost all full-time K-12 educators. Preparing principals and superintendents as anti-racist leaders in the current sociopolitical climate is central to my work, and I come to this literature review as an invested knower. As I read the articles that we have reviewed, I reflect on my own writing in relation to race, knowing that I have a lot of questions but do not always have the answers (e.g., Roegman, 2018).

Osly: While conducting this review, I have had the opportunity to examine how my identity as a First-Generation Latino man situated me throughout my experience in my former leadership preparation program. In my cohort of eleven peers, I was the only one to have read Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1970), which highlighted to me at that time the lack of political consciousness among a group of peers aspiring to be future principals. A more significant reflection was how I was the student who persistently raised questions and discussions around racism in a program that seemingly desired to be color-evasive. Presently, I bring my anti-racist life to my professional role to help my students “decolonize their minds, to maintain awareness, change behavior, and create beloved community” (hooks, 2003, p. 40).

Joonkil: As an Asian male growing up in a family with working-class Asian parents, I am the first person in my family who completed middle school let alone a doctoral degree. As a former high school teacher in an Asian country, where equity discourses centered mainly around socioeconomic status, I bring my interest in the intersection of race and other types of oppression (class, sexuality) into this research project. Having firsthand experience in U.S. teacher education and principal preparation programs as a teacher and principal candidate and currently, a faculty member in a U.S. higher education principal preparation program focused on promoting racial equity, my expertise in quantitative methods also contributes to achieving the research team’s goal to identify ways in which QuantCrit scholars shed light on racism and its intersection with other types of oppression.

As faculty in leadership preparation programs, we are committed to anti-racist leadership preparation practices and assessing our individual and collective work in preparing the next generation of anti-racist leaders. While we each briefly introduced ourselves and our positionalities, drawing on Boveda and Annamma’s (2023) framing, we see positionality as dynamic and embedded within the sociohistorical moments of our work. We are not neutral in reading this literature and have adopted CRM as our lens as an intentional choice, even though we are not all critical race theorists, because, despite our differences, we are united in the need for anti-racist work as individuals and as a field.

3. Findings

The purpose of this study was to review the literature to better understand how the field researched principal preparation in relation to race and racism. In this section, we present a detailed discussion of the studies through the lens of CRM, considering how the literature engages in its key tenets. We first present the results of the analysis of the 36 articles according to each tenet. Then, we highlight two articles that illustrated that tenet. The articles that we highlight were chosen because they were rated high on that specific tenet, though they may have been rated low or medium for other tenets. This approach enables us to illustrate exemplars of each tenet across of range of studies.

3.1. Tenet 1: Foregrounding Race and Racism

Our review examined whether the study’s purpose, design, and findings included clear language that centralized or addressed race and racism. Sixteen of the 36 were found to have high foci on race and racism throughout the study’s purpose, design, and findings (Barakat et al., 2021; Boske, 2015; Diem & Carpenter, 2013, Diem et al., 2019, Gooden et al., 2018; Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015; Grace & Lastrapes, 2024; Hines, 2016; Jacobs et al., 2013; Kemp-Graham, 2015; V. Lac, 2024; V. T. Lac & Diaz, 2023; Mette, 2022; Morgan & Cieminski, 2023; Rasmussen & Raskin, 2023; Waite, 2021). Twelve of these articles were rated as medium in discussions of race and racism (J. G. Allen et al., 2017; Boske et al., 2017; Caruthers & Friend, 2012; Chen et al., 2022; Garza, 2020; Genao, 2016; Guerra et al., 2013; Huchting & Bickett, 2021; Jones, 2023; Miller & Martin, 2015; Nganga & Jamison, 2024; Salazar et al., 2013). We found eight (8/36) articles to be low because they did not include an explicit focus on issues of race and racism (Barakat et al., 2019; Biolchino, 2024; Boske, 2012; Jenlink, 2014; Jones & Ringler, 2017; Palmer et al., 2019; Palmer et al., 2022; Robey et al., 2019). We now discuss two articles that strongly demonstrate how researchers might foreground race and racism in investigating principal preparation.

Boske’s (2015) study investigated aspiring school leaders’ meaning-making through sensory reflective practices within a principal preparation course. Boske endeavored to examine graduate student learning around addressing racism in K-12 schools in relation to their emotions. In discussing her results, Boske distinguished differences in the responses articulated between her students based on race and ethnicity. For example, through the various reflection activities used in the course, 49 of the 51 white candidates expressed not having an initial understanding of racism but then gaining a greater understanding. Boske provided the following example, James, a White, male, middle class teacher, noted in an audio reflection regarding his artmaking, ‘We don’t talk about this at work or in professional development, but I know now it’s needed, because we can’t ignore the pink elephant in the room…racism is toxic and silent in the district.’ (p. 127).

Meanwhile, Boske pointed out that all the candidates of color in the course conveyed that addressing racism should be part of aspects of leadership preparation. In summing up the growth of candidates’ critical consciousness related to race and racism, Boske highlighted how white students disclosed their discomfort with the process of deepening their understanding of self and shared their anxiety as they engaged in what several identified as ‘uncharted territory.’ People of color, however, expressed a need to increase awareness and critical dialogue with school communities and preparation programs in order to interrupt deficit thinking. (p. 130).

Boske’s study provided an example of how a researcher focuses on ways that candidates’ racial and ethnic identities influenced, hindered, or facilitated their understanding of how the U.S. educational system marginalized students based on race. Boske’s study exemplified foregrounding of race and racism in the activities that candidates engaged in, the data sources that she collected, and her analysis.

In a second study that had a clear foregrounding of race and racism, Barakat et al. (2021) used a mixed-methods approach to measure candidate growth of cultural competence. The study was situated within a leadership preparation program recently redesigned with a social justice framework. Half of the 46 candidates self-identified as being of color or from a marginalized group. Barakat et al. note a few critical findings in their interpretation of quantitative findings that showed how they foregrounded race. One such finding related to the Cultural Competence of Educational Leaders (CCEL) instrument, with prompts specifically related to K-12 students’ racial background or marginalized status that had the most candidate growth. In their qualitative findings, Barakat and colleagues made clear that candidates were engaged in conversations about race specifically:

[Candidates] repeatedly expressed that throughout the program in every course, not only the Leadership for Social Justice course, they engaged in conversations about inequities, social injustices, issues of cultural competence and diversity, racism, cultural oppression, and the needs of historically minoritized students. A student said, “[The cross-curricular theme of social justice] started off in one class and it went through multiple other courses where it just kept coming up. So that conversation about race was a defining conversation for me (p. 32).

Barakat et al. argued that their mixed-methods approach filled in the gaps between the two methodological approaches to collecting data. They also use both to delve into participants’ thoughts on race and education.

Our findings indicate a medium or high focus on race and racism in most studies reviewed (28/36), illustrating that this topic is important to leadership preparation. However, this high number was likely the result of our search criteria, and 28 is a relatively small number of studies compared to the number of studies on principal preparation published within the time period.

3.2. Tenet 2: Challenging Traditional Theories and Paradigms

We examined articles’ theoretical frameworks and research approaches to look at ways that authors explicitly work to counter dominant practices. In this criterion, 14 out of 36 articles reviewed were rated high to challenges to traditional methods, performing research, or epistemology (Barakat et al., 2021; Diem & Carpenter, 2013; Caruthers & Friend, 2012; Garza, 2020; Genao, 2016; Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015; Grace & Lastrapes, 2024; Hines, 2016; Jacobs et al., 2013; Jenlink, 2014; V. Lac, 2024; Rasmussen & Raskin, 2023; Waite, 2021). The research approach of five articles was identified as medium as they relied on innovative or unconventional data sources that were intended to center the experiences of people of color but had no explicit discussions of these as challenging the paradigm or a nuanced discussion of researcher positionality (Boske, 2012; Boske, 2015; Boske et al., 2017; Nganga & Jamison, 2024; Palmer et al., 2019). Meanwhile, 17 articles scored as low did not explicitly offer a challenge to dominant ways of knowing or conducting research (J. G. Allen et al., 2017; Barakat et al., 2019; Biolchino, 2024; Chen et al., 2022; Diem et al., 2019; Guerra et al., 2013; Gooden et al., 2018; Huchting & Bickett, 2021; Jones & Ringler, 2017; Jones, 2023; Kemp-Graham, 2015; Mette, 2022; Miller & Martin, 2015; Morgan & Cieminski, 2023; Palmer et al., 2022; Robey et al., 2019; Salazar et al., 2013). We now discuss two articles in which the authors explicitly challenged dominant paradigms, illustrating the need to use frameworks and research designs that offer alternatives to dominant practices when examining anti-racist leadership preparation.

Jenlink’s (2014) critical ethnography examined how the discourses and practices within a leadership preparation program shaped the identities of scholar-practitioners, using cultural ecology as a theoretical lens. Participants included 27 candidates and five faculty members, and data were drawn from varied sources, including interviews, focus groups, artifacts, and reflexive journals. In this study, Jenlink challenges dominant ways of understanding leadership preparation through his interrogation of regimes of truth (Foucault, 1980) and disciplinary practices embedded but not always seen within leadership preparation. He wrote,

Educational administration/leadership, as a field of study and practice, is a discipline that has a culture defined, in part, by its theoretical, epistemological, and pedagogical practices. Within these disciplining practices there are preparation concerns related to ‘regimes of truth’ (Foucault, 1980) that shape the social identity and the social practices of educational leaders. Disciplining practices and discourses, embedded in policy/procedure and curriculum and pedagogies, reflect a politics of truth (ideologies) in a society or a culture within society, and the discourses that are accepted as ‘truth’ to the discipline, or functions as a surrogate for truth (p. 2).

Specifically in relation to leadership preparation for social justice, which was a foundation of the program he studied and where he worked, Jenlink identified questions related to “what stands as ‘truth’ in relation to social justice leadership, which was perceived as resulting from conflicting frames of ‘truth’ presented by faculty members in the different courses” (p. 20). By adopting a theoretical lens that required an examination of taken-for-granted concepts such as “democracy, social justice, caring, community, and ethical/moral leadership” (p. 20) and examining the ensuing “epistemological and pedagogical conflicts” (p. 20) experienced by participants, Jenlink offers a challenge to dominant ideologies that assume these concepts have stable and shared meanings.

The second article we highlight is Garza’s (2020) study combining narrative inquiry, literary analysis, and testimonios. This study offered an example of how methods can be used to challenge traditional, dominant ways of knowing. Garza’s methodological choice of testimonios/narratives, with data drawn from 11 years of teaching, connects directly to his teaching philosophy: “If I ask my students to share their life stories, I must be willing to share my story and vulnerabilities as well” (p. 460). His instructional approach rejects the push of neutrality in the idea that the researcher should not be present in the data. He chose this methodological approach in part to highlight his students’ voices:

According to Clandinin (2006), narrative inquiry is a way to produce collaborative understanding of experience between the researcher and participants over prolonged engagement. A testimonio is an oral account, a verbal journey of the participant’s life (Reyes & Curry Rodríguez, 2012). Testimonios in this article refers to both individual and group narratives that may represent a collective or common experience, without claim to generalizability (p. 460).

His data sources are both innovative (reflective journals, interviews, researcher notes, autoethnography, and poetry) and push the boundary of typical qualitative methods in the reciprocal nature of the work—he too participated in the writing with candidates so that they “witness faculty grappling with our ongoing transformation as educators” (p. 463). By expanding the types of data used in qualitative research, incorporating personal experiences, and intentionally designing research studies to elicit multiple ways of knowing, Garza’s study illustrated how research design could challenge dominant ways of positivist knowing and knowledge production. Results show that fewer than half of the reviewed studies scored highly in challenging traditional paradigms and theories (14/36). Instead, most of the literature reviewed generally followed traditional paradigms, as illustrated by choices related to frameworks, methods, and data sources.

3.3. Tenet 3: Proposing Liberatory or Transformative Solutions to Issues of Marginalization

By examining the literature’s implications and recommendations sections, we looked for foundational rethinking of the assumptions and purposes of leadership preparation itself, as well as the role of preparation within broader policies and systems. Interestingly, our review demonstrated that this tenet was one of three that had the least amount of well-developed analysis, with only six (6/36) articles being reviewed as high (Caruthers & Friend, 2012; Huchting & Bickett, 2021; Jacobs et al., 2013; V. T. Lac & Diaz, 2023; Rasmussen & Raskin, 2023; Waite, 2021). The articles scored as high offered solutions that require a rethinking of the assumptions and purposes of leadership preparation or consider preparation within a broader view of policies and systems. Eighteen articles were scored as medium and offered solutions related to curriculum revision or a pedagogical activity (Biolchino, 2024; Boske, 2012; Boske, 2015; Boske et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2022; Diem & Carpenter, 2013; Diem et al., 2019; Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015; Grace & Lastrapes, 2024; Hines, 2016; Kemp-Graham, 2015; V. Lac, 2024; Mette, 2022; Miller & Martin, 2015; Morgan & Cieminski, 2023; Nganga & Jamison, 2024; Palmer et al., 2019). An additional 12 studies were assessed as low; these offered recommendations to do more of what a program or course was already carrying out, with recommendations for additional readings, discussions, or courses (J. G. Allen et al., 2017; Barakat et al., 2019; Barakat et al., 2021; Garza, 2020; Genao, 2016; Gooden et al., 2018; Guerra et al., 2013; Jenlink, 2014; Jones & Ringler, 2017; Jones, 2023; Robey et al., 2019; Salazar et al., 2013). We now discuss two articles in which the authors connected their findings to solutions that have the potential to reimagine leadership preparation.

Huchting and Bickett’s (2021) qualitative interview study examined nine program graduates’ understandings of social justice leadership within the context of working in affluent K-12 schools. One of their key implications is “the complex factors that impede aspirations for social justice” (p. 60). While this is not a surprise, it is an important factor to consider in developing recommendations for leadership preparation, in that ignoring the complexities of social justice leadership, especially in relation to different K-12 contexts, will lead to ineffective leadership practice. The authors also reflect on how candidates racialized and gendered backgrounds interact with the enactment of social justice leadership. Consequently, one of their recommendations to address complex factors is for ongoing professional support and development related to social justice leadership that begins in preparation and continues through practice. Huchting and Bickett suggested that this parallel approach can be transformative “where school site PD programmes and professional preparation programmes inform each other and work in concert across content and time to create career-long social justice educators” (p. 60). This recommendation draws on two different organizational contexts, university preparation and K-12 schooling, to work together to advance social justice leadership. While it may not always be practical for preparation programs and districts to work in parallel or in partnership, understanding the complexities of social justice leadership suggests the need for work beyond preparation programs. They note the challenge of social justice leadership within communities with dominant stakeholders advocating for maintaining a status quo that perpetuates racism and other forms of oppression, and they see work on preparation occurring alongside work in other aspects of educational organizational spaces.

In the second study, Jacobs et al. (2013) examined principal candidates’ experiences applying what they had learned in coursework within their action research projects (a program requirement). They conducted focus groups with 12 candidates in their equity-oriented preparation program. Similarly to Huchting and Bickett’s (2021) argument for building partnerships, Jacobs and colleagues highlighted the importance of relationships with three educational stakeholders: teachers, school administrators, and the community. Specifically, in their sample, community refers to parents of color. Although the authors acknowledged the significance of all three relationships, it is the relationship with the parents of color that requires the readdressing of leadership preparation assumption and purpose focused only on administration or curriculum. Jacobs et al. acknowledge the benefit of developing community connections and for all candidates; however, it is noted this was especially impactful for candidates of color. They wrote that,

Our findings suggest a need to reexamine our principal-dominant model of [leadership for social justice]. Such principal-dominant models, while important, are not realistic for collaborative systemic change in the long term. Rather, our findings suggest that engaging the on- and off-campus community in meaningful ways assists emerging leaders development for social justice.

(pp. 114–115)

Jacobs et al. argued for the importance of community knowledge in principal preparation and the need to “position racially diverse teachers and communities as experts and valuable stakeholders” (p. 115). At the same time, they found that this type of assignment, for some white candidates, was seen as a course requirement to check off, and not a productive learning opportunity for these students to come to understand diverse ways of knowing and how they connect to leadership. Though their assignment was not successful for all students, we highlight here Jacobs et al.’s recommendation to look beyond university preparation to partnerships within communities and school districts, and associated with this, for research to include communities as participants. As faculty reflect on how these assignments and partnerships are working, they can revise them to provide candidates with commensurate learning from knowledge and understanding of excluded voices. In short, those practices that force educators to rethink our assumptions and purpose of leadership preparation are beneficial for researchers, candidates, and leaders working in complex systems of affluent communities. Only a small number offered high liberatory or transformative solutions (6/36).

3.4. Tenet 4: Centralizing the Experiences of Candidates of Color

We looked to literature that drew on the lived experiences of candidates of color to help challenge normative narratives of who can be a leader, what leadership for racial equity looks like, and how racism inherent in K-12 systems impacted the preparation of principal candidates. Seventeen of the 36 articles reviewed were assessed as high and presented findings that focused on the experiences of candidates of color (Boske, 2015; Caruthers & Friend, 2012; Chen et al., 2022; Diem & Carpenter, 2013; Diem et al., 2019; Garza, 2020; Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015; Grace & Lastrapes, 2024; Huchting & Bickett, 2021; Jacobs et al., 2013; V. Lac, 2024; V. T. Lac & Diaz, 2023; Miller & Martin, 2015; Morgan & Cieminski, 2023; Nganga & Jamison, 2024; Rasmussen & Raskin, 2023; Waite, 2021). In addition, five articles assessed as medium disaggregated findings by candidates’ racial/ethnic background or stated the race/ethnicity of a candidate preceding a direct quote, though this was not central to the discussion of the findings (Boske, 2012; Genao, 2016; Guerra et al., 2013; Gooden et al., 2018; Kemp-Graham, 2015). However, we assessed 14 articles as being low, as they did not include racial or ethnic identifiers of candidates in their findings (J. G. Allen et al., 2017; Barakat et al., 2019; Barakat et al., 2021; Biolchino, 2024; Boske et al., 2017; Hines, 2016; Jenlink, 2014; Jones, 2023; Jones & Ringler, 2017; Mette, 2022; Palmer et al., 2019; Palmer et al., 2022; Robey et al., 2019; Salazar et al., 2013). We discuss two articles that centered on the experiences of candidates of color.

Diem and Carpenter’s (2013) exploration of race-related silences in leadership preparation examined ways that classroom silences shape candidates’ learning and engagement with race-related issues. The study used two focus group interviews—one during the initial program and one at the completion of the first full academic year—with 17 students in a leadership program designed to interrogate and address race and racism. Also, individual interviews with the three faculty professors and a graduate student who helped design the program were conducted. Diem and Carpenter focused explicitly on their candidates’ backgrounds in presenting their reflections on what happened in class, as illustrated in this extended quote:

A Latino student provided an alternative reason as to why he silenced himself during the discussion of the movie,

The reason I was quiet is because I think that I can kind of relate to the way a White person feels because I’m from (a city in the Southwest region of the United States) and it’s 99.9% Hispanic and you don’t see any White people.

We categorized this response as a veiled silence. Although this student’s Latino heritage places him within a group that is itself often othered, we interpreted his withdrawal from conversations to be informed by a positionality shaped by his upbringing within a homogeneous community. In addition, we interpreted his commiserations with White struggles to be shaped by an upbringing where, as he admitted, he was never challenged to consider his existence as a raced individual. This particular student claimed that before entering graduate school, he lacked an experiential understanding of race and racism, as his interactions with different races were almost completely nonexistent before relocating from his hometown (pp. 67–68).

In this excerpt, Diem and Carpenter presented the perspectives of this student on why he did not participate in a class discussion and then analyzed his perspectives from a race-conscious lens, considering the complexity of his Latino identity in racially homogenous and heterogeneous contexts. They went on to discuss his early interactions as a “racialized person,” including an experience where a white woman crosses the street when he nears her. In discussing this Latino candidate’s experiences of race outside of the classroom as well as the backgrounds of other participants in their study, Diem and Carpenter “highlight how an individual’s life story, personal biases, and insecurities complicate discussions focused on race” (p. 71). When these discussions occur within leadership preparation classrooms, the difficulty of participating in and facilitating productive racial conversations became reinforced. Diem and Carpenter’s work showed that candidates of color experience different difficulties in racial conversations than white candidates, which is a critical concept for principal educators to understand and address.

Miller and Martin’s (2015) multi-case study examined four participants’ perspectives on the effectiveness of their preparation regarding cultural responsiveness, education equity, and social justice. The participants, all principals from Missouri, included two African American females, one white male, and one white female. In discussing one of the themes from their data, Miller and Martin explicitly discussed one principal’s racial background as part of her leadership philosophy:

Principal Gaynor had strong convictions about serving all children equally well. As she declared, ‘I just believe in equity… equal for all kids. I don’t deal with inequities very well. I want everything fair for kids… opportunities for all kids’. As an African American administrator, she recognized cultural bias in some of her teachers but was reluctant to pinpoint specific examples and instead focused her attention on holding teachers accountable through difficult conversations. She was a self-described ‘reflective person’ who believed in educating all children ‘‘‘in spite of all the things happening over here in their lives.’ ‘We can’t change that [students’ home lives] so what are we going to do about it?’. In light of this conversation about demographic change and cultural difference being enriching, she seemed reticent in her ability to lead a diverse educational community (p. 145).

Miller and Martin identify how principal Gaynor’s racial background supported her ability to recognize bias in her teachers as well as her willingness to lead difficult conversations, unlike the participants in Diem and Carpenter’s (2013) study. Miller and Martin showed the strong commitment to advancing equity that this principal brought with her, from preparation through her principalship; however, she reported, like the other participants in this study, that very little in her preparation program supported the development of skills needed to effectively lead a racially and culturally diverse building.

Overall, our review found that less than half of the studies scored high in focusing on the experiences of candidates of color (17/36), with five more rated medium (5/36), highlighting a need to increase this focus. The reviewed studies highlighted that the narratives of principal candidates of color demonstrated the complexity of socially constructed identity and leadership. Diem and Carpenter (2013), for example, shared reflections of Latino and Latina leadership candidates on class discussions about race; both participants chose not to engage in discussions in part because of how they initially saw themselves as non-racialized individuals, but they also knew in the majority white class that they were seen as students of color. Miller and Martin (2015) discussed tensions faced by an African American female principal in their study, facing cultural bias from teachers on their staff while also unintentionally having their own biases toward Latine students, and reporting insufficient preparation from her program related to addressing biases. Insights from candidates of color can help leadership preparation faculty and researchers to think more broadly about the experiences of all candidates in relation to the complexities of identity.

Importantly we found a missing voice in considering the voices of people of color—that of K-12 students of color. It is important to consider the perspectives of K-12 students of color, as their experiences can provide new ways of thinking about data and participant selection (Flores & Ahn, 2024; V. T. Lac & Mansfield, 2018; A. D. Welton et al., 2022). Just as K-12 students’ racialized backgrounds influence their experiences of school, so too do the racialized backgrounds of principal candidates (Radd et al., 2021). As suggested by CRM methodologists, expanding notions of whose voices must be heard within this literature complicates findings and offers new possibilities for preparation practices (Covarrubias et al., 2018).

At the same time, it is critical that researchers consider the experiences of candidates of color from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, instead of grouping them all into one category. This may be necessary for confidentiality purposes if a study examining a specific preparation program has a very small number of candidates that could be easily identifiable, such as only one Asian American male or one Indigenous female. However, this then calls on researchers to consider other methodological approaches to ensure confidentiality while reflecting the multiplicity of experiences of candidates of color.

3.5. Tenet 5: Applying an Interdisciplinary Knowledge Base

Using historical, contemporary, and interdisciplinary insights helps understand the experiences of people of color and how racism and other types of oppression impact the lives of people of color. Our review of the articles revealed this tenet as having only five of the 36 reviewed articles scored as high; these studies wove an examination of the historical background of racism or interdisciplinary insights throughout their analysis and discussion (Caruthers & Friend, 2012; Genao, 2016; Hines, 2016; Mette, 2022; Waite, 2021). Ten articles assessed as medium discussed theories or concepts from outside of education in either literature review or theoretical framework, although they did not fully discuss how these interdisciplinary insights informed their analysis of racism or the experience of people of color (J. G. Allen et al., 2017; Barakat et al., 2019; Boske et al., 2017; Guerra et al., 2013; Jacobs et al., 2013; Jones, 2023; V. Lac, 2024; Miller & Martin, 2015; Morgan & Cieminski, 2023; Nganga & Jamison, 2024). The majority, 21 of the 36 reviewed articles, were evaluated as low in that they either did not include discussions of literature or theories external to education or briefly mentioned or cited theories outside education without discussing their connection to their study (Barakat et al., 2021; Biolchino, 2024; Boske, 2012; Boske, 2015; Chen et al., 2022; Diem & Carpenter, 2013; Diem et al., 2019; Garza, 2020; Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015; Gooden et al., 2018; Grace & Lastrapes, 2024; Huchting & Bickett, 2021; Jenlink, 2014; Jones & Ringler, 2017; Kemp-Graham, 2015; V. T. Lac & Diaz, 2023; Palmer et al., 2019; Palmer et al., 2022; Rasmussen & Raskin, 2023; Robey et al., 2019; Salazar et al., 2013). We now present two articles that employed an interdisciplinary approach, illustrating how this methodological focus enhances understandings of developing anti-racist leaders.

Using candidate assignments and comments from course evaluations across two years, Waite (2021) examined how liberatory pedagogical strategies helped aspiring school leaders to develop as anti-racist leaders. Drawing on Freire’s (2000) concept of conscientization, relevant to the interdisciplinary perspective1, Waite illustrated how much candidates’ critical consciousness can be essential in challenging “one’s personal ontology and epistemology when it has been centered and established as a societal standard during your entire primary–post–secondary schooling experiences” (p. 75). Waite goes on to emphasize candidates’ reflection on their assumptions and acknowledges by stating, “their lived experience is not the global ontological gospel” but is a prerequisite to “critique society at large and oneself” (p. 75). When presenting findings, Waite explained pedagogical approaches focused on the conscientization process of candidates are critical, as illustrated in this reflection from a Black female candidate:

My first real encounter of being black. I had always considered myself Jamaican because that was my identity. My family, school, friends, and church all identified me as being Jamaican. I know that this might sound funny, but I had always just considered myself Jamaican alone. It wasn’t until I was at a friend’s birthday party and we were sitting on her porch, in my junior year of high school, when I was actually confronted with my skin color…I recall having parents protesting outside of my middle school over students who had been bussed into the “local school.” I remember thinking they weren’t upset with me and walking home. But this particular night, this drunk gentleman didn’t care who I was or how I possibly identified myself. He only saw the color of our skin and shared his unsolicited thoughts with us.

In this quote, Waite illustrated how the examination of candidates’ “internalized oppression” helped them “to dig deep and find the moment she [they] realized that she [they] lacked critical awareness” (p. 76). Waite’s (2021) study not only showed how pedagogical practices informed by insights from outside of education (in this case, Freire’s sociological concept of conscientization) can be instrumental in pushing candidates toward disrupting the prevalent racism and anti-Blackness, but also how using these disciplinary approaches can enhance research into candidate learning around race.

Genao’s (2016) study of six female candidates of color examined how their reflections on the diversity and multiculturalism literature impact culturally responsive teaching and leadership practice. They read literature including works from W.E.B DuBois, bell hooks, and Paulo Freire. Genao first introduced a candidate’s reflection that states, “being the only Black student in the classroom reminded me of how different I was and that being bilingual and bicultural may not be as accepted as I thought in high school” (p. 436). The candidate indicated an awareness of her minoritized state as a person of color. Genao went on to discuss the reflection on the literature prompted another candidate to become aware of how critical her role was as a teacher of students whose educational experiences have been limited:

After reading the work of these two authors, I am able to see how my educational and teaching experiences are interrelating. I was becoming part of Freire’s “banking education” and assumed that those students who memorized without questioning the curriculum were critical thinkers. I did not realize that the students asking me questions were not asking because they didn’t know, but because they were questioning what they were reading. These were teachable moments for me and I did not engage them because I was now part of the new matrix of educational attainment. Numbers meant more to me because my administration expected me to have a higher rate of passing students than a higher rate of intellectual students (p. 439).

In terms of interdisciplinary perspective, Genao incorporated Freire’s concept of conscientization into their pedagogy, similar to Waite’s (2021) work; however, Genao further illustrated how this “awareness of one’s oppressed state and insight into the suppressive methodologies of the oppressors” (p. 436) provided the foundation for candidates’ proactive sense of responsibility, which would possibly prompt them to engage in social changes. Genao argues her purposeful design to include Freire’s work was:

I felt compelled to expose them to the importance of ‘conscientizacao’ by Freire (1990), the awareness of one’s oppressed state and insight into the suppressive methodologies of the oppressors. This awareness is the foundation for liberating action that, when coupled with reflection, creates praxis. Praxis, in turn, builds a sense of proactive responsibility in those who would engage in social change. This, from my perspective as a leadership educator, defines the means and ends of our pedagogy (Kaak, 2011) (pp. 436–437).

Thus, researchers who are also preparation faculty, like Genao, use their interdisciplinary knowledge to extend and deepen candidate learning, contributing to the literature on transformational learning.

CRM emphasizes how crucial it is to place race and racism in historical, contemporary, and multidisciplinary contexts to better understand the lived experiences of people of color (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Duncan, 2002; Gillborn, 2015; Parker, 1998). Genao’s (2016) and Waite’s (2021) incorporation of Freire’s (1970) concept of conscientization into their pedagogy and research illustrates this, placing racism and other oppressions faced by K-12 districts within larger socio-political contexts, such as the Black female candidate in Waite’s study who reflecting on the differences in seeing herself as Jamaican or as Black. A Black female candidate in Genao’s study reflected on the context in terms of the classroom and what it means to be Black in predominantly white spaces. Conscientization offered a way for this student to see herself as minoritized and led her to more fully understand how oppression functions in society. Our review illustrates the ways in which incorporating multidisciplinary insights into research can help develop a critical awareness of the oppressions prevalent in schools. However, overall, the studies reviewed did not prominently include interdisciplinary work, with only five rated highly.

3.6. Tenet 6: Employing an Intersectional Approach

While acknowledging race and racism is at the center of critical race analysis, CRM theorizes race in intersection with other systems of oppression based on immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, language accent, and class, for example (K. Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Haynes et al., 2020). Our review of the articles resulted in only seven articles that demonstrated a high indication of discussing race in addition to at least one other identity (Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015; Grace & Lastrapes, 2024; Huchting & Bickett, 2021; Kemp-Graham, 2015; V. Lac, 2024; Mette, 2022; Nganga & Jamison, 2024). Meanwhile, nine out of the 36 articles mentioned students’ race and one other identity but did not delve deeper to discuss the influence of intersectionality (Boske, 2015; Caruthers & Friend, 2012; Chen et al., 2022; Diem & Carpenter, 2013; Diem et al., 2019; Jacobs et al., 2013; V. T. Lac & Diaz, 2023; Morgan & Cieminski, 2023; Rasmussen & Raskin, 2023). The remaining 20 studies only discussed race or used other identity markers with no intersecting discussion (J. G. Allen et al., 2017; Barakat et al., 2021; Barakat et al., 2019; Biolchino, 2024; Boske, 2012; Boske et al., 2017; Garza, 2020; Genao, 2016; Gooden et al., 2018; Guerra et al., 2013; Gooden et al., 2018; Hines, 2016; Jenlink, 2014; Jones, 2023; Jones & Ringler, 2017; Miller & Martin, 2015; Palmer et al., 2019; Palmer et al., 2022; Robey et al., 2019; Salazar et al., 2013; Waite, 2021).

Gooden and O’Doherty (2015) examined how principal candidates from diverse race backgrounds developed awareness of race and racism via writing racial autobiographies. Relevant to our focus, Gooden and O’Doherty provided illustrations of how candidates with diverse racial and class identities indicated distinctive characteristics when they reflected on their unique experiences regarding racial isolation. Specifically, a Black candidate recalled his childhood experience of racial isolation as “a victim of White flight” (p. 236), involving the intersection of race and class. He expressed resentment at middle-class Black people who followed white neighbors as they relocated to the suburbs. The candidate stated, “What was more disturbing was the number of Black families that had withdrawn their children from the school and enrolled them into private schools for the same reasons as the White families” (p. 236). On the other hand, white candidates’ experience of living in all-white environments led to a lack of experience of interacting with other races. One white candidate stated, “There were no minority families in my neighborhood. Every teacher I had from pre-K to 12th grade was White. God and Santa Claus were White, too.” (p. 234). The authors intentionally highlight how race intersected with social class.

Kemp-Graham’s (2015) study explored graduates of principal preparation programs in 2011, 2012, and 2013 in Texas to understand their awareness of racism and oppression using survey data. Kemp-Graham used The Diversity & Oppression Scale (DOS) survey with 106 responses. Specifically, Kemp-Graham’s factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) suggested graduates’ ethnicity by gender interaction was significantly associated with their level of understanding of societal discrimination. Several points in her findings pointed out an awareness of the intersection of at least two identities that could and do influence the results. For example, in a measurement scale that asked graduates to reflect on their ability to understand diversity between and within cultures, Kemp-Graham found and interpreted her findings in the following, An interesting finding on this subscale was that although women represent 72% of the respondents for this survey, only 40% of the respondents indicated that they felt confident about their knowledge and understanding of women’s history, traditions, values, family systems, and artistic expressions. Perhaps this could be attributed to lack of understanding of women from different ethnic groups than their own (p. 112).

In the above quote, she argues that simply having a shared gender identity does not account for differences based on the intersection of racial or ethnic identity.

Furthermore, Kemp-Graham intentionally explored the intersection of gender and ethnicity and between ethnicity and age response in the DOS scale:

[T]here was significant interaction between gender and ethnicity on survey responses on the Diversity and Oppression subscale, F(2, 72) = 5.090, p = 0.009, indicating any differences in scale score were dependent upon the gender and race of the respondents (p. 119).

[T]here was also a significant interaction between ethnicity and age of respondents on the Diversity and Oppression subscale, F(4, 72) = 3.62, p = 0.009 indicating any differences in scale score were dependent upon the ethnicity of the respondents and the differences among the age groups (p. 121).

As evidenced by the above analysis, the researcher takes an approach in her findings to investigate how the intersection of identities influenced the program graduates’ understanding of diversity and oppression. Fewer than half of the studies addressed candidate intersectionality (16/36).

3.7. Tenet 7: Engaging in Critical Reflexivity

In understanding the methodological approaches in leadership preparation programs that support candidates’ growth, it is important to examine how researchers engage in the process of critical reflexivity and how they acknowledge their positionalities. Overall, 10 studies out of the 36 in the sample were scored as high to demonstrate in-depth details and a critical approach to critical reflexivity (Caruthers & Friend, 2012; Chen et al., 2022; Diem et al., 2019; Gooden et al., 2018; Grace & Lastrapes, 2024; V. Lac, 2024; V. T. Lac & Diaz, 2023; Nganga & Jamison, 2024; Rasmussen & Raskin, 2023; Waite, 2021). There were ten articles reviewed as medium where the researchers briefly included a reflexivity statement (Barakat et al., 2019; Biolchino, 2024; Boske, 2015; Diem & Carpenter, 2013; Garza, 2020; Genao, 2016; Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015; Guerra et al., 2013; Jacobs et al., 2013; Palmer et al., 2022). Sixteen of the studies were assessed as low (J. G. Allen et al., 2017; Barakat et al., 2021; Boske, 2012; Boske et al., 2017; Hines, 2016; Huchting & Bickett, 2021; Jenlink, 2014; Jones, 2023; Jones & Ringler, 2017; Kemp-Graham, 2015; Mette, 2022; Miller & Martin, 2015; Morgan & Cieminski, 2023; Palmer et al., 2019; Salazar et al., 2013; Robey et al., 2019). Below we review two scored as high for critical reflexivity.

Diem et al. (2019) presented their critical thinking around sharing their own identities in their self-study of their classroom practice. The authors acknowledge that everyone is a raced being, and they demonstrated the significance of revealing their ontological and epistemological position:

Certainly our critical interpretation of data was influenced by our own understanding of ourselves as raced beings and our positions on school choice; however, the contrasts in our lived experiences and biased positionalities provided great depth to our initial analysis of the stories shared by participants (p. 717).

Above, the authors revealed the importance and aim of interrogating their own positionalities as they analyze data from participants, many of whom come from different social locations with different worldviews.

Waite (2021) is another researcher who wrote a strong critical reflexivity statement, embedded within her article’s conclusion. Waite’s article was likewise a self-study of principal preparation courses she taught. She reflected on herself through an intersectional approach—race and gender—as a Black woman as well as a parent of Black children. Her critical reflection focused on the experiences of students of color when she highlighted her daughters attending the public school that she is preparing the school leaders. Similarly to Diem et al. (2019), Waite used a critical reflexivity statement to recognize “that everyone brings their own personal ontological and epistemological truths with them to work, understanding that both ideologies influence how they engage in the work they do” (p. 80). In addition, in identifying how her racial, gender, and parental identities intersect to disclose as a professor in a principal preparation program, she acknowledges such work “is personal” (p. 80).

While there was a range in authors’ critical reflexivity, few studies achieved a high score for nuanced attention to this tenet (10/36). We were surprised by this, especially because many of the studies appeared to be researchers studying their programs, courses, or assignments. Tillman (2002) argued that faculty “who teach educational research courses can begin to work toward a pedagogical and paradigm shift by critically examining our cultural biases and our teaching strategies (content of the syllabi, class structure, classroom discourse)” (p. 9). Ironically, Rowan et al. (2021) found similar findings in their review of teacher preparation literature focused on training future teachers to serve student diversity in schools. According to Rowan et al. (2021), not many papers comprising their review “focused explicitly on issues relating to the skills and knowledge of teacher educators themselves” (p. 148), and this leads them to infer that when “teacher educators make decisions about how they are going to design programs or deliver courses, they are doing so without a critically reflexive stance that is based on the most recent, or most relevant, research-based advice” (p. 149).

We argue engaging in critical reflexivity does not just address issues of researcher bias but also helps the reader better situate the study’s findings. Particularly in researching racism or social justice, the risk of social desirability is high, as is the possibility that principal candidates engage in coursework (class discussion, written assignments) in ways that they think their professors (who may also be the researchers) desire. The risk of social desirability does not mean that we should not be researching our own classrooms, but that we should consider the potential for this type of bias in interpreting and analyzing our data. The silence around how one’s positionalities influence research can support the continued presence of majoritarian stories of white privilege (Gillborn, 2015; Haynes et al., 2020), even within research that desires to create anti-racist school leaders (Diem et al., 2019; A. D. Welton & Diem, 2021; Young & Laible, 2000). Researchers engaging in critical quantitative methods have similarly called for scholars to take notice to keenly interrogate how their identities influence research design and statistical examination (Covarrubias, 2011; Covarrubias et al., 2018; Tabron & Thomas, 2023). As D. G. Solórzano and Yosso (2002) argue, as we use CRM to have legitimate discussions of race and racism, “we work from our own positions in the margins of society” (p. 37).

4. Discussion

Issues of race, racism, and anti-racism have moved to the center of discourse in the U.S., and numerous scholars, drawing on a range of methods and frameworks, are looking for ways for preparation programs to develop the next generation of school leaders capable of addressing race and racism in equitable ways (Roegman et al., 2021; Marshall & Hernandez, 2013; Rusch, 2004; Trujillo & Cooper, 2014; A. D. Welton & Diem, 2021). Our review of the literature using critical race methodology revealed what leadership preparation should continue to do, what needs improvement, and specific recommendations for researchers responsible for preparing school leaders. The significance of our review is that it clarifies which areas of research on leadership preparation for racial justice require improvement from the lens of CRM; it also carries implications for leadership preparation research and practice more broadly.

Many core assumptions and beliefs remain, both explicitly and implicitly, in how scholars research the experiences of candidates within these programs and the impact of programs on candidate practice. CRM methodologists highlight the need to think about what it means to know and whose assumptions researchers rely on in answering that question (Covarrubias, 2011; D. G. Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Tabron & Thomas, 2023).

While not directly related to CRM, it is important to note that the time period of 2012–2024 included a resurgence of Anti-Asian racism that occurred in relation to the COVID-19 global pandemic (Kao, 2021). Despite this resurgence, this important topic did not come up in the reviewed research. It is possible that research coming out in the next few years will examine how principal preparation programs addressed anti-Asian racism, if they did so at all, or how Asian and Asian American principals and candidates navigated this. However, it is also possible that without explicit attention, anti-Asian racism will continue to be invisible (Kao, 2021).

Importantly, like any time period, various sociopolitical events have occurred that create the context in which research is conducted, such as the repeal of Affirmative Action and several states’ legislation against diversity-focused work. This creates an even more challenging leadership context for principals, emphasizing the importance of preparation programs and those that research them in thinking about and research race.

Lastly, professional leadership standards were relatively absent in the literature reviewed, both in setting the context for curricular decisions and in considering the desired knowledge, dispositions, and skills of principal candidates. Notwithstanding Waite’s (2021) call to rethink the leadership standards, this absence suggests that despite recent revisions, they may not be a useful tool for addressing race and racism in leadership preparation.

Although this study focuses on how researchers utilize CRM, our findings offer significant implications for leadership preparation programs. Coupled with continuing conservative ascendancy in the U.S., state legislatures have increasingly restricted the discussion of certain topics within classrooms. These patterns suggest an urgent need for leadership preparation programs to critically examine and restructure their curricula so that future educational leaders are equipped not only respond to, but also to proactively lead within educational environments characterized by increasingly complex and overlapping dimensions of inequity.

4.1. Recommendations

While the research reviewed offers many recommendations related to leadership preparation itself, we focus our recommendations on the research itself and how leadership researchers can incorporate CRM into their work, as that was the focus of our review. At the same time, we argue that more research is needed to better understand how principal candidates are being prepared to address race in leadership preparation. It is important to identify which approaches are impactful, in what ways, and for which candidates, and to understand how this work is occurring in states with legislation preventing certain topics from being covered at the university and K-12 level (See Amiot et al., 2020). We offer a set of recommendations for drawing on CRM in conducting research on principal preparation.

Much of the literature we reviewed did not acknowledge that current, dominant research practices perpetuate racism and anti-Blackness (Dumas, 2016; Jenkins, 2021). As such, we recommend that researchers both acknowledge the racist foundations and assumptions of much empirical research and the racist foundations of leadership preparation in the U.S. Understandings of what counts as “research” is a contested field that privileges whiteness, and the overwhelming whiteness of leadership preparation, not just in the racial background of candidates and leaders, but in the understanding of what “leadership” means also privileges whiteness (R. L. Allen & Liou, 2019; Kohli et al., 2017). CRM and other methodological approaches that require researchers to acknowledge and address ways that whiteness has been privileged in leadership preparation have the potential to create different types of knowledge than traditional, dominant approaches that may move the field even further (Tabron & Thomas, 2023). Building from this, more research that examines leadership practice from an interdisciplinary lens can assist in pushing against ahistorical research that presents whiteness as the norm.

Examining principal preparation programs within the larger context of the university system, K-12 institutions, and society at large is important. A close analysis of how specific classes, and also preparation programs as a whole, are situated within their departments and universities can offer clearer direction on how to move forward as anti-racist leadership preparation. For example, as some states move forward with legislation that limits ways that race and racism can be discussed, research is needed to see how these programs continue to advance anti-racist practice within such a challenging context. In contrast, understanding how programs work toward similar goals within university systems and K-12 contexts that appear to be more open to conversation and work related to anti-racism offers a different set of possibilities for how to advance the work. While many of the studies in this review focused on individual classrooms, looking at programs more broadly and how different courses, instructors, programs, and policies interact can help the field to have a broader sense of the current scope of anti-racist preparation across the country (A. D. Welton & Diem, 2021).

Research that examines intersectionality can be adopted to improve principal preparation research is also needed. Scholars can look to advances in QuantCrit and CRM as possibilities in this area (Covarrubias, 2011; Gillborn, 2015; Haynes et al., 2020). While most of the reviewed studies that specifically center the narrative of participants of color highlight how their identities provided them with the ability to be more cognizant of culture and racism compared to white students, what also emerged was the need to understand further how intersectional identities can influence candidates of color and white candidates. We recommend a continued examination of how candidates of different backgrounds experience preparation and leadership in similar and different ways. Instead of assuming whiteness as the norm, considering how candidates of color navigate, learn from, and act on their leadership preparation programs is useful both for the future preparation of candidates of color and the future preparation of white candidates (Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015). At the same time, we must remember that “candidates of color” is in fact a general term that represents a broad range of identities. Understanding how candidates from different racial groups experience principal preparation is also essential. This might involve cross-institution research with larger data sets to better provide confidentiality of participation.

Further, we recommend future scholarship that examines who is entering preparation programs, particularly related to beliefs and practices related to race and racism, and what is happening within preparation programs. We are curious if the attention to race in the media has inspired teachers to enter leadership preparation programs and if principal candidates today are more likely to have a critical lens than those of the past. It is also important to investigate the degree, if any, to which programs have changed their approaches, readings, assignments, or coursework to make addressing race and racism central to their work. The lack of research on anti-Asian racism in preparation was notable given its resurgence in the country (Kao, 2021), and this would be an important direction for future work as well.

We also recommend research that examines the experiential knowledge of K-12 students of color in relation to leadership. The educational leadership literature, in general, is not attuned to the voices of the children that leaders serve (V. T. Lac & Mansfield, 2018; Salisbury et al., 2023; A. D. Welton et al., 2022); whether the voices of K-12 students broadly, or K-12 students of color specifically (Bertrand, 2014, 2018). However, students can provide more complex understandings of the types of leaders and leadership needed to advance anti-racist practice, as they are primary stakeholders in K-12 schooling. It is important to note, however, that many ethical issues exist in working with minoritized youth beyond those covered by the IRB, from issues of confidentiality to those of taking advantage of vulnerable populations for a researcher’s personal gain. When scholars commit to working with youth of color, attending to these issues is central prior to beginning a research project and throughout the project itself.

We noticed a lack of emphasis on critical reflectivity. It is essential that researchers engage in critical reflexivity, internally but also externally, within their written work (Radd et al., 2021). Doing so helps readers better contextualize the findings of each study, particularly when the researcher is examining their own program or classroom practice. In addition to these recommendations for further research, it is important to note that our literature search focusing on peer-reviewed articles poses a limitation in terms of the comprehensiveness of the sampled literature, thus excluding potentially important information sources.

4.2. Concluding Thoughts

The changes needed for anti-racist practice are best supported by research employing critical race methods. Despite the current politic attacks that push for color-evasive perspectives on education, changes cannot occur in preparation or through research alone but require coordination and work across several organizational fields. To rethink the assumptions of educational leadership and how it is studied requires a critical examination in several areas, including frameworks, coursework, standards, and even language: anti-racist, racial equity, social justice, cultural responsiveness, and so on that influence university preparation programs.

CRM offers an important lens for conducting research on principal preparation. We note that across the 36 studies, each had a unique framework and method. In other words, very little was shared across the studies in terms of how anti-racist leadership preparation is being studied. It is challenging to make claims across this body of literature when this great diversity of research exists. Most studies focused on one course or program, and while this type of research is valuable, looking across programs more broadly is valuable as well. Building on these individualized studies, CRM offers a methodological perspective and set of tenets that scholars, including ourselves, can draw from as we continue to research the nature of anti-racist leadership preparation, how it is enacted in different contexts, and how it influences and impacts candidate practice when research looks across programs, universities, and states.

CRM scholars, from action research and qualitative studies to more recent quantitative approaches, have expanded the boundaries of how race can be studied; findings from this literature review also have the potential to lead to innovative approaches in studying principal preparation. We are not arguing for the creation of a uniform method or framework that all scholars use; instead, we argue for increased opportunities for scholars to meet, discuss, and collaborate across institutions around how they are studying race and racism within leadership preparation. This is imperative as schools across the country continue to struggle to equitably educate students of color and as discourses around race continue to embroil and polarize the political landscape. School principals need to be prepared to lead within this context, and understanding the research field in this area is one of the important steps in strengthening leadership preparation and practice.