4.7 Article

Digitalization and digital transformation in higher education: A bibliometric analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1081595

关键词

digitalization; digital transformation; cultural change; bibliometric analysis; resistance to change; research trends; higher education institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The massive use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has led to new paradigms that are transforming various sectors, including education. Higher education institutions are undergoing a cultural change to adapt to this new reality. A bibliometric analysis of scientific literature on this topic reveals its multidisciplinary nature and its close connection to innovation, governance, and agile methodologies. The study also highlights potential research directions that may attract more attention in the near future.
The new paradigms that are emerging because of technological and social advances derived from the massive use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) are generating a transformative process that is modifying all economic sectors, and education is no exception. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are carrying out such transformation, reacting to the need of adaptation to this new reality, experiencing a complete cultural change that is challenging the attitudes, actions and values shared by the members and stakeholders of these organizations. In order to analyze the scientific literature about this topic, a bibliometric analysis has been carried out covering the period 1900-2021, considering a sample of 469 articles included in the Web of Science (WoS) database. The results show the multidisciplinary nature of the topic, including articles published in different areas, as well as its close link with aspects such as innovation, governance and agile methodologies. Finally, this study highlights the main lines of research that could attract more attention in the immediate future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据