future research on technology

Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research

• Open access
• Published: 18 April 2020
• Volume 71 , pages 233–341, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Swen Nadkarni 1 &
• Reinhard Prügl 1  

149k Accesses

283 Citations

11 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In the last years, scholarly attention was on a steady rise leading to a significant increase in the number of papers addressing different technological and organizational aspects of digital transformation. In this paper, we consolidate existing findings which mainly stem from the literature of information systems, map the territory by sharing important macro- and micro-level observations, and propose future research opportunities for this pervasive field. The paper systematically reviews 58 peer-reviewed studies published between 2001 and 2019, dealing with different aspects of digital transformation. Emerging from our review, we develop inductive thematic maps which identify technology and actor as the two aggregate dimensions of digital transformation. For each dimension, we derive further units of analysis (nine core themes in total) which help to disentangle the particularities of digital transformation processes and thereby emphasize the most influential and unique antecedents and consequences. In a second step, in order to assist in breaking down disciplinary silos and strengthen the management perspective, we supplement the resulting state-of-the-art of digital transformation by integrating cross-disciplinary contributions from reviewing 28 papers on technological disruption and 32 papers on corporate entrepreneurship. The review reveals that certain aspects, such as the pace of transformation, the culture and work environment, or the middle management perspective are significantly underdeveloped.

Similar content being viewed by others

Digital Transformation: A Literature Review and Guidelines for Future Research

An Introduction to Digital Transformation

Digital Transformation Framework: A Bibliometric Approach

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Digital transformation, defined as transformation ‘concerned with the changes digital technologies can bring about in a company’s business model, … products or organizational structures’ (Hess et al. 2016 , p. 124), is perhaps the most pervasive managerial challenge for incumbent firms of the last and coming decades. However, digital possibilities need to come together with skilled employees and executives in order to reveal its transformative power. Thus, digital transformation needs both technology and people. In the last years, scholarly attention, particularly in the information systems (IS) literature, was on a steady rise leading to a significant increase in the number of papers addressing different technological and organizational aspects of digital transformation. In the light of this development, we are convinced it is the right time to map the territory and reflect on the current state of knowledge. Therefore, in this paper we aim at providing a descriptive, thematic analysis of the field by critically assessing where, how and by whom research on digital transformation is conducted. Based on this analysis, we identify future research opportunities.

We approach this objective in two steps. First, we adopt an inductive approach and conduct a systematic literature review (following Tranfield et al. 2003 ; Webster and Watson 2002 ) of 58 peer-reviewed papers dealing with digital transformation. By applying elements of grounded theory and content analysis (Corley and Gioia 2004 ; Gioia et al. 1994 ) we identify important core themes in the literature that are particularly pronounced and/or unique in transformations enabled by digital technologies. In a second step, in order to assist in breaking down disciplinary silos (Jones and Gatrell 2014 ) and avoiding the building of an ivory tower (Bartunek et al. 2006 ; Fuetsch and Suess-Reyes 2017 ), we supplement the pre-dominantly IS-based digital transformation literature with a broader management perspective. Accordingly, we integrate cross-disciplinary contributions from reviewing 28 papers on technological disruption and 32 papers on corporate entrepreneurship.

We find these research fields particularly suitable for informing digital transformation research for two reasons. First, by reviewing the literature on technological disruption we hope to derive implications regarding technology adoption and integration. Burdened with the legacy of old technology, bureaucratic structures and core rigidities (Leonard-Barton 1992 ), incumbents may face major challenges in this respect during their digital transformation journey. Second, we expect corporate entrepreneurship to add a more holistic perspective on firm-internal aspects during the process of transformation, such as management influence or the impact of knowledge and organizational learning.

Our findings and related contributions are threefold: First, based on a systematic and structured analysis we develop digital transformation maps which inductively categorize and describe the existing body of research. These thematic maps identify technology and actor as the two aggregate dimensions of digital transformation. Within these dimensions, we reveal nine core themes which help to disentangle the particularities of digital transformation processes and thereby emphasize the most influential and unique antecedents and consequences of this specific type of transformation. Thus, it becomes possible to identify the predominant contextual factors for which research would create the strongest leverage for a better understanding of the challenges inherent in digital transformation. Second, we contribute to the advancement of this field by elaborating opportunities for future research on digital transformation which integrate the three perspectives mentioned above. In particular, informed by corporate entrepreneurship, we find that the important middle management perspective on digital transformation has thus far been largely neglected by researchers. Also, emerging from our review we call for more studies on the various options for integrating digital transformation within organizational architectures and existing processes. Third, in reviewing the adjacent literature on technological disruption and corporate entrepreneurship, we strengthen the valuable management perspective within the primarily IS-based discussion on digital transformation. This way we avoid the reinvention of the wheel while at the same time enable the identification of cross-disciplinary research opportunities. We hope to stimulate discussion between these different but strongly related disciplines and enable mutual learning and a fruitful exchange of ideas.

2 Conceptual foundations

Technology as a major determinant of organizational form and structure has been well acknowledged by academics for a long time (Thompson and Bates 1957 ; Woodward 1965 ; Scott 1992 ). Following a significant decline of interest in this relationship until the mid-1990s (Zammuto et al. 2007 ), innovations in information technologies (IT) and the rise of pre-internet technologies have revitalized its relevance in the context of organizational transformation. Thus, the literature on IT-enabled organizational transformation, a concept which originates from the field of information systems (IS) that has caught considerable academic attention starting back in the early 1990s (Ranganathan et al. 2004 ; Besson and Rowe 2012 ), may be seen as one of the scholarly roots of digital transformation research. In his seminal book, Morton ( 1991 ) argued that companies must experience fundamental transformations for effective IT implementation. In the course of the years a shift of attention occurred from technological to managerial and organizational issues (Markus and Benjamin 1997 ; Doherty and King 2005 ). Non-technological aspects such as leadership, culture, and employee training were found to be equally important for successful IT-enabled transformation (Markus 2004 ). This is supported by Orlikowski ( 1996 ) who found empirical evidence from a 2-year case study that organizational transformation was in fact enabled by technology, but not caused by it.

Today, information technologies have become ‘one of the threads from which the fabric of organization is now woven’ (Zammuto et al. 2007 , p. 750). Digital technologies are considered a major asset for leveraging organizational transformation, given their disruptive nature and cross-organizational and systemic effects (Besson and Rowe 2012 ). In order to achieve successful digital transformation, changes must occur at various levels within the organization, including an adaptation of the core business (Karimi and Walter 2015 ), the exchange of resources and capabilities (Cha et al. 2015 ; Yeow et al. 2018 ), the reconfiguration of processes and structures (Resca et al. 2013 ), adjustments in leadership (Hansen and Sia 2015 ; Singh and Hess 2017 ), and the implementation of a vivid digital culture (Llopis et al. 2004 ). Therefore, the scope of our review revolves around digital transformation at the organizational level only (in contrast to implications at the individual level).

In this study, we conceptualize digital transformation at the intercept of the adoption of disruptive digital technologies on the one side and actor-guided organizational transformation of capabilities, structures, processes and business model components on the other side. In other words, and in line with Hess et al. ( 2016 ), we define digital transformation as organizational change triggered by digital technologies. Hence, we argue that two perspectives of digital transformation within organizations must be captured: a technology-centric and an actor-centric perspective. To exploit the technology-centric perspective we include the literature on technological disruption (e.g. Tushman and Anderson 1986 ; Anderson and Tushman 1990 ) and merge it with research on digital transformation. For the actor-centric perspective, we derive essential implications from the field of corporate entrepreneurship (Guth and Ginsberg 1990 ), which we believe may add valuable insights regarding actor-driven innovation and renewal processes within firms. In the following, we offer a brief introduction to both concepts and their relationship with digital transformation.

Rice et al. ( 1998 ) define disruptive innovations as ‘game changers’ which have the potential ‘(1) for a 5–10 times improvement in performance compared to existing products; (2) to create the basis for a 30–50% reduction in costs; or (3) to have new-to-the world performance features’ (p. 52). Similarly, Utterback ( 1994 ) emphasizes this disruptiveness at the firm and industry level and provides a similar ‘game changer’ definition in terms of ‘change that sweeps away much of a firm’s existing investment in technical skills and knowledge, designs, production technique, plant and equipment’ (p. 200). Tushman and Anderson ( 1986 ) distinguish between product and process disruptiveness. Product disruptiveness encompasses new product classes, product substitutions, or fundamental product improvements. Process disruptiveness may take the form of process substitutions or process innovations which radically improve industry-specific dimensions of merit. Christensen and Raynor ( 2003 ) introduce a further form of disruptive innovations, namely disruptive business model innovations, which represent the implementation of fundamentally different business models in an existing business.

We argue that digital technologies may reflect in all of these definitions of disruptive innovation. They may represent new-to-the-world product innovations, dislocate existing processes, and open up entirely new business models. As resumed in a recent study by Li et al. ( 2017 ), e-commerce for instance is defined as a disruptive technology (Johnson 2010 ) which involves significant changes to an organization’s culture, business processes, capabilities, and markets (Zeng et al. 2008 ; Cui and Pan 2015 ).

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) on the other side is a multi-dimensional concept at the intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management in existing organizations (Zahra 1996 ; Hitt et al. 2001 ; Dess et al. 2003 ). We adopt the conceptualization proposed by Guth and Ginsberg ( 1990 , p. 5), who argue that corporate entrepreneurship deals with two phenomena ‘(1) the birth of new businesses within existing organizations, i.e. internal innovation or venturing, and (2) the transformation of organizations through renewal of the key ideas on which they are built, i.e. strategic renewal.’ Particularly the aspect of strategic renewal in corporate entrepreneurship, also labelled as strategic change, revival, transformation (Schendel 1990 ), reorganization, redefinition (Zahra 1993 ), or organizational renewal (Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994 ), provides a promising interface to digital transformation. As stated by Covin and Miles ( 1999 , p. 50), corporate entrepreneurship ‘revitalizes, reinvigorates and reinvents’—processes also required for digital transformation. Various authors have stated that corporate entrepreneurship is a vehicle to improve competitive positioning and transform corporations (Schollhammer 1982 ; Miller 1983 ; Khandwalla 1987 ; Guth and Ginsberg 1990 ; Naman and Slevin 1993 ; Lumpkin and Dess 1996 ). Considering the disruptive nature of many current digital technologies, we believe that organizations need to fundamentally renew and redefine the key ideas of their business in order to fully exploit the potential of digitization and eventually achieve successful transformation. The literature places particular attention on the role of middle managers as the locus of corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman 1983 , Floyd and Wooldridge 1999 ). Concluding, we will review the research on corporate entrepreneurship and identify those contributions which we believe may offer valuable knowledge regarding actor-driven internal renewal and change processes in the light of digital transformation.

Our review of the literature on digital transformation, technological disruption and corporate entrepreneurship is conducted in a two-step approach. First, we review, analyze and synthesize existing articles on digital transformation. Then, in a second step we supplement these findings be simultaneously reviewing the literature stream on technological disruption and corporate entrepreneurship. We believe a separate analysis and contrasting of the research streams is appropriate for two reasons: first, it provides the reader with more clarity on the status quo of digital transformation knowledge and prevents the confusion of concepts emerging from different literature fields. Second, white spots and opportunities for future research regarding digital transformation become much more visible in such a structured approach.

3 Research methodology

A systematic review is a type of literature review that applies an explicit algorithm and a multi-stage review strategy in order to collect and critically appraise a body of research studies (Mulrow 1994 ; Pittaway et al. 2004 ; Crossan and Apaydin 2010 ). This transparent and reproducible process is ideally suited for analyzing and structuring the vast and heterogeneous literature on digital transformation. In conducting our review, we followed the guidelines of Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ) and the recommendations of Denyer and Neely ( 2004 , p. 133) Footnote 1 as well as Fisch and Block ( 2018 ) in order to ensure a high quality of the review.

The nature of our review is both scoping and descriptive (Rowe 2014 ; Paré et al. 2015 ) as we aim to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the available literature as well as to summarize and map existing findings from digital transformation research. By developing opportunities for future research, our review further contributes to the advancement of this field and stimulates theory development.

For the purpose of data collection, we exclusively limit our focus on peer-reviewed academic journals as recommended by McWilliams et al. ( 2005 ). Thus, we opted to exclude work in progress, conference papers, dissertations, or books. First, based on discussion among the authors and the reading of a few highly-cited papers, we designed our search criteria using combinations of keywords containing ‘ digital* AND transform*’ , ‘ digital* AND disrupt*’ , ‘ digitalization’ , and ‘ digitization ’. Then, we manually searched each issue of each volume of the leading journals in the management Footnote 2 and IS field (AIS Basket of eight). Footnote 3 In addition, we run our search query against five different electronic databases: Business Source Premier (EBSCO) , Scopus , Science Direct , Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) , and Google Scholar . We used all years available and only included articles referring to business, management, or economics in order to exclude irrelevant publications. We abstained from including digital innovation in our search (the only exception in our sample is a recent literature review by Kohli and Melville ( 2019 ), in order to capture consolidated insights). Although we realize that it is a hot topic in IS research at the moment (e.g. Fichman et al. 2014 ; Nambisan et al. 2017 ; Yoo et al. 2010 , 2012 ), we aim to concentrate our focus on papers dealing with digital transformation on a broader level (firm and industry), rather than with transitions within innovation management.

Our first search query was conducted mid 2017 and yielded an initial sample of 1722 publications. This very large sample was mainly due to the broad ambiguity of the terms ‘digital’ and ‘disrupt’. Given these broad search parameters, we anticipated that only a small fraction of this very large sample would prove to be of substantive relevance to us. To select these relevant articles for our final sample, we performed a predefined and structured multi-step selection process (similar to the approach of Siebels and Knyphausen-Aufseß 2012 ; Vom Brocke et al. 2015 ) and defined specific criteria for inclusion (Templier and Paré 2015 ). The filters during our selection process included (1) scanning the titles, (2) reading abstracts, (3) removing duplicates, (4) full reading and in-depth analysis of the remaining papers, and finally (5) cross-referencing and backward searching by looking through the bibliographies of the most important articles to find additional relevant work. The initial pool was split in half between two panelists who separately performed the scanning of titles, analysis of abstracts and removal of duplicates. After these early steps, the sample could be narrowed down to 155 articles. As we arrived at step 4 “full reading and in-depth analysis of the remaining papers”, both panelists read and independently classified each of the remaining 155 studies. During this process, papers qualified for the final sample if they satisfied three requirements: (1) articles were required to have their primary focus and contribution within digital transformation research or digitally-induced organizational transformation (e.g. a vast number of papers inadequately captured the topic of digital transformation as they primarily focused on business model innovation), (2) articles needed to be based on a sound theoretical foundation and therefore not primarily practitioner oriented (such as articles that offer popular recommendations to business leaders on how to survive digital transformation), (3) papers that were not addressing digital transformation at an organizational level (e.g. the rise of home-based online businesses by entrepreneurs) were dismissed. Whenever disagreements emerged regarding the inclusion or classification of an article, we engaged in discussion and tried to resolve the issue together to make our selection rules more reliable. We updated the review in the autumn of 2018 for any articles that had appeared between then. Following this approach, 58 studies passed all five selection steps and were included in our final sample.

Within this sample, conceptual articles (27) and case studies (20) are dominant. Roughly 60% of the articles stem from the IS literature, while 40% cover a broader management perspective of digital transformation. While the reviewed papers span a time frame from 2001 to 2018, approximately eighty-percent of articles were published within the past 5 years, indicating the relative novelty of digital transformation as a research discipline. The distribution of our sample according to journals is provided in Table  4 of “ Appendix ”.

Upon the recommendation of Webster and Watson ( 2002 ), our categorization and analysis of the literature was concept-centric. First, to facilitate analysis and build a basis for our initial coding, each selected paper was reviewed to determine the following database information.

(1) Article title, (2) outlet, (3) research methodology, (4) sample, (5) region, and (6) key findings (see full database in Table  5 of “ Appendix ”). Next, we started coding our sample, adopting elements of the approach introduced by Corley and Gioia ( 2004 ). We began by identifying initial concepts in the data and grouping them into provisional categories and first order concepts (open coding). Then, we engaged in axial coding (Locke 2001 ) and searched for relationships and common patterns between and among these provisional categories, which allowed us to assemble them into second order themes. Finally, we assigned these second order themes to aggregate dimensions, representing the highest level of abstraction in our coding. In sum, reviewing and analyzing the extant literature, 194 coded insights were generated within the field of digital transformation: 61 first order concepts, nine second order themes, and two aggregate dimensions. The nine second order themes represent core themes across the papers, which finally constitute two aggregate dimensions: technology and actor. In conclusion, we define digital transformation as actor-driven organizational transformation triggered by the adoption of technology-driven digital disruptions. The result of the coding process is a high-level inductive map of the core themes in digital transformation research (Fig.  1 ).

Digital transformation high-level thematic map emerging from the analysis of the literature

The reviewed studies from our sample provide a rich body of knowledge regarding the specific contextual factors of digital transformation. This may be beneficial to both researchers and practitioners enabling a more comprehensive understanding of the peculiarities of digital transformation (in comparison to previous technology-driven transformations).

4.1 Macro-level findings

On a macro level, the central observation emerging from our review is that both technology- and actor-centric aspects take center stage within this debate. This is also reflected in various definitions of digital transformation provided in the sample. For example, Lanzolla and Anderson ( 2008 ) represent the technology-centric side and emphasize the diffusion of digital technologies as an enabler for transformation. Such digital technologies may include big data, mobile, cloud computing or search-based applications (White 2012 ). Similarly, Hess et al. ( 2016 ) note that digital transformation is ‘concerned with the changes digital technologies can bring about in a company’s business model, which result in changed products or organizational structures or in the automation of processes’ (p. 124). However, Hess et al. ( 2016 ) also highlight the role of actors (e.g. managers) in promoting transformation processes, while facing the challenge of simultaneously balancing the exploration and exploitation of resources. Leaders must have trust in the value and benefits of new IT technologies and support their implementation (Chatterjee et al. 2002 ).

In total, we find an almost even distribution of papers studying the two dimensions of technology and actor: 33% are technology-centric, 34% are actor-centric, and 33% of papers cover both technology and actor. However, within these two dimensions we observe a rather uneven distribution of articles by second order themes. On the technology-centric side, we find that understanding the implications of digital technologies on the consumer interface and market environment are highly active research streams. In comparison, understanding the pace of change in times of digital transformation and its direct impact on incumbents is so far comparably understudied. On the actor-centric side, our review reveals a very dominant focus on leadership and capabilities in a digital context, while in contrast company culture and work environment thus far received less recognition. We also find that the status-quo of digital transformation literature is rather diverse, in a sense that papers discuss topics across various categories of our thematic map and are therefore not restricted nor focused to a specific unit of analysis. The vast majority of articles is related to adjacent topics of digital transformation underpinning its nature as a diverse and broad field of research while again indicating its emerging nature.

In addition, we observe some degree of diversity in the theoretical foundations drawn upon. Different theories are applied by several authors to capture the context of digital transformation, e.g. alignment view, configuration theory, resource-based view, dynamic capabilities, organizational learning theory, network view or business process reengineering. It would be interesting to use other theoretical angles, for example from the literature on corporate entrepreneurship and technological disruption, in order to increase theoretical diversity. Such an exchange with different fields of research would broaden the scope of the field and help bridging an ivory divide . Finally, from a methodological perspective, we observe that actor-centric papers primarily use case studies while technology-centric studies at this point are pre-eminently conceptual. In general, the literature is scarce regarding quantitative empirical evidence. We see this as a strong indicator for the early stage of digital transformation research.

4.2 Micro-level findings: the technology-centric side of the equation

In the following, we present and discuss the most important findings of the second order themes within the technology-centric dimension. In Fig.  2 we provide a thematic map for this dimension and in Table  1 a brief summary including illustrative quotes.

Thematic map for technology-driven themes in digital transformation literature

4.2.1 Pace of change and time to market

In times of digital transformation, the speed of technological change is disproportionally accelerating with new digital capabilities being rolled out every year. The technological capability of applications such as the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, cloud computing, and mobile technologies significantly increases the overall pace of change. For example, entire industries, like the newspaper business, have been transformed and digitized within a very short period of time (Karimi and Walter 2015 ). Further, the cloud and online platforms have revolutionized the process and pace of turning an innovative idea into a business (Vey et al. 2017 ). Today, innovative ideas can be realized within days and companies set-up literally ‘overnight’. In this sense, in the digital world striving for a ‘first-mover advantage’ due to a ‘winner takes it all’ environment has become more important for incumbent firms (Grover and Kohli 2013 ) as they have much less time to respond to such threats and should not give away first-mover advantages too easily.

Moreover, pure digital companies like Facebook, Google or Amazon have substantially raised the overall time to market and speed of product launches (Bharadwaj et al. 2013 ). With continuous improvements in hardware, software and connectivity, these companies set the pace for a tightly timed series of product launches. Thus, firms in the hybrid world (digital and physical) are being put under enormous pressure to also accelerate their product introductions. In a digitally transformed market, the control of speed of product development and launches is increasingly transferred to an ‘ecosystem of innovation’ in the sense of a network of actors with complementary products and services (Bharadwaj et al. 2013 ).

4.2.2 Technology capability and integration

The technological capability and power of digital transformation applications, such as for example the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, cloud computing, and mobile technologies, is in terms of computing power, data storage and information distribution in many cases significantly higher than in previous technology-driven transformations. Earlier business transformations were mostly concerned about introducing internal management information systems such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) or customer relationship management (CRM). These transformations were usually limited to improvements to business processes within firm boundaries (see Ash and Burn 2003 ; Kauffman and Walden 2001 in: Li et al. 2017 ). But today, cross-boundary digital technologies such as IoT devices (Ng and Wakenshaw 2017 ), 3D printing (Rayna and Striukova 2016 ), and big data analytics (Dremel et al. 2017 ), drive transformations that go far beyond internal process optimizations as they potentially induce drastic changes to business models (Rayna and Striukova 2016 ), organizational strategy (Bharadwaj et al. 2013 ), corporate culture (El Sawy et al. 2016 ; Dremel et al. 2017 ; Sia et al. 2016 ), and entire industry structures (Kohli and Johnson 2011 ).

Further, the review confirms that the role and significance of data itself is changing profoundly and that personal data has become one of the most powerful assets in the digital era (Ng and Wakenshaw 2017 ). In fact, we believe the impact of the massive increase in quantity and quality of data generated every day (Bharadwaj et al. 2013 ) and the game changing power of big data analytics (Günther et al. 2017 ) are yet to be fully experienced and understood by society, economy and academics.

With regards to the process of dematerialization of tangible products and objects (e.g. CDs, books, machinery etc.), triggered by the transformative capabilities of digital technologies, the most notable insight is that intriguingly, in many cases the digital substitutes, for example e-books, offer superior performance and higher customer benefits than their physical counterparts (Loebbecke and Picot 2015 ). This, for example, is in contrast to the assumptions provided by Christensen ( 1997 ) more than 20 years ago, arguing that new disruptive technologies usually provide different values from mainstream technologies and are often initially inferior to mainstream technologies, therefore only serving niche markets in the beginning.

Finally, regarding technology integration, the current state of research emphasizes the importance of flexible IT (Cha et al. 2015 ), new enterprise platforms (El Sawy et al. 2016 ), and a strong and scalable operational backbone (Sebastian et al. 2017 ) as part of an agile digital infrastructure. The old paradigms of technology integration are not effective any more. However, in a second step we need to reach a more comprehensive understanding of ‘how’ and ‘where’ the integration of technology and transformation activities should be embedded within the organizational architectures of incumbent firms.

4.2.3 Consumer and other stakeholder interface

With regards to the customer interface, which is currently receiving the highest levels of attention by scholars, we conclude that there is some solid research particularly on changes in consumer behavior (Berman 2012 ; El Sawy et al. 2016 ; Ives et al. 2016 ; Lanzolla and Anderson 2008 ), consumer preferences (Vey et al. 2017 ) and consumer knowledge (Berman 2012 ; Granados and Gupta 2013 ). Firstly, our review confirms that in the new digital marketplace, consumers behave differently than before, and traditional marketing techniques may not apply anymore. Today there are myriad choices to easily gather information about products and services far before the actual purchase. For instance, customer buying decisions are increasingly influenced by online customer-to-customer interaction via platforms and social media, where users share products feedbacks, upload home video clips, or publish blog entries (Berman 2012 ). In this sense, digital technologies are also transforming firms’ customer-side operations (Setia et al. 2013 ) and customer engagement strategies (Sebastian et al. 2017 ). For example, reaching out to customers in a digital environment requires digital omnichannel marketing, including e.g. social media, mobile apps, and augmented reality (El Sawy et al. 2016 ). Secondly, we may note that digital technologies increasingly reduce the information asymmetries between sellers and buyers (Granados and Gupta 2013 ). In this sense, information ubiquity (Vey et al. 2017 ) and instant access to data via mobile technologies (Berman 2012 ) profoundly change the long-established seller–customer relationship. And thirdly, the current literature raises awareness for the emergence of multi-sided business models. While in the ‘old’ world, intermediaries were matching sellers and buyers, in the digital market place, intermediation increasingly takes place through the establishment of multi-sided digital platforms and networks (Bharadwaj et al. 2013 ; Evens 2010 ; Pagani 2013 ).

4.2.4 Distributed value creation and value capture

The review of the literature reveals that the value chain has become far more distributed in times of digital transformation—particularly value creation and value capture. Two major changes can be observed here: (1) digital technologies offer opportunities to customers to co-create products with the manufacturer, e.g. via digital platforms (El Sawy et al. 2016 ; Ng and Wakenshaw 2017 ), and (2) on an inter-firm level value is increasingly co-created and captured in a series of partnerships in a value network (Evens 2010 ). As Bharadwaj et al. ( 2013 ) argue, network effects are the key differentiator and driver of value creation and capture in a digital world. The focus of value creation is therefore shifting from value chain to value networks. For this purpose, companies like Google are experimenting with multi-sided business models. In such a multilayered business model, a company gives away certain products or services in one layer to capture value at a different layer (Bharadwaj et al. 2013 ). Google is giving away its Android operating system for free and captures value via the ability to control advertising on every phone that uses Android.

In more general terms, we may conclude that control of value in the digital world is less and less determined by R&D capabilities, competitors, or industry boundaries. Instead the buyer, not the seller, determines the dimensions of value that matter (Keen and Williams 2013 ). Therefore, businesses need to engage with their customers at every point in the process of value creation (Berman 2012 ). Also, the strong impact of digital technologies on incumbent’s value chains imply some degree of deviation from the classical and often analog core business. For example, new product-related competencies, platform capabilities or value architectures will be required. And, incumbents must prepare for new forms of monetization in the digitized marketplace.

4.2.5 Market environment and rules of competition

This is a rather broad and diverse categorization in our review, as it comprises technology-driven changes in the market environment. After consumer-centric aspects this research stream received the most attention by scholars in the review (on the technology-centric side). In sum, the current state of literature recognizes three major developments. First, digital transformation redefines, blurs and even dissolves existing industry boundaries which may lead to cross-industry competition (Sia et al. 2016 ; Weill and Woerner 2015 ). Dominant industry logics (Sabatier et al. 2012 ) apparently do not work anymore in times of digital transformation. The ‘new kid on the block can come out of the blue’ (Vey et al. 2017 , p. 23) and even individuals can become competitors as 3D Printing is expected to lead to a sharp increase in competition from SMEs and individual entrepreneurs (Rayna and Striukova 2016 ). And with the emergence of multi-sided business models also incumbents are starting to disrupt new markets (Weill and Woerner 2015 ). For instance, Google is disrupting the mobility sector with its self-driving car subsidiary Waymo, while Amazon has introduced AmazonFresh as a grocery delivery service which is seen as a potentially tough competitor to supermarkets. Second, with the emergence of digital platforms, networks, and ecosystems the market infrastructure becomes increasingly interconnected (Grover and Kohli 2013 ; Majchrzak et al. 2016 ; Markus and Loebbecke 2013 ). In a broader sense, we see a shift from controlling or participating in a linear value chain to operating in an ecosystem or network (Weill and Woerner 2015 ). As different types of innovation networks with different cognitive and social translations regarding knowledge emerge, novel properties of digital infrastructure in support of each network are required. Digital technologies therefore increase innovation network knowledge heterogeneity (Lyytinen et al. 2016 ). Third, the free flow of digital goods precipitates an erosion of property rights and higher risks of imitation (Loebbecke and Picot 2015 ).

4.3 Micro-level findings: the actor-centric side of the equation

In the following, we present and discuss the most important findings of the second order themes within the actor-centric dimension. In Fig.  3 we provide a thematic map for this dimension and in Table  2 a brief summary including illustrative quotes.

Thematic map for actor-driven themes in digital transformation literature

4.3.1 Transformative leadership

Understanding the impact of digital transformation on leadership and management behavior is a very active and prioritized research focus. In total, 23 papers in our review explore this aspect. First and foremost, research calls for a shift in the traditional view of IT strategy as being subordinate to business strategy (El Sawy et al. 2016 ). In the course of the past two decades information technologies have surpassed their subordinate role as administrative ‘back office’ assets and evolved into an essential element of corporate strategy building. Thus, incumbents should align IT and business strategies on equal terms and fuse them into ‘digital business strategy’ (Bharadwaj et al. 2013 ).

Also, emphasis is placed on the changing nature of leadership itself, caused by digital transformation. Such changes may include rapid optimization of top management decision-making processes enabled by instant access to information and expansive data sets (Mazzei and Noble 2017 ), new communication principles (Bennis 2013 ; Granados and Gupta 2013 ), or changes in leadership education (Sia et al. 2016 ). Further, there is consensus that senior management requires a new digital mindset in order to captain their company’s digital transformation journey. Therefore, incumbents should also rethink their leadership education practices. In the past, leadership programs have been primarily about leadership and communication skills. But in times of digital transformation, executives must become ‘tech visionaries’ and develop their transformative powers. For example, Sia et al. ( 2016 ) have conducted a case study on an Asian bank that uses hackathons to educate their senior managers. Media transparency and exposure are further key challenges of digitization where top managers may require some additional education. Given the ubiquity of information and the speed of online data dissemination (via mobile phones, viral effects of social media etc.), leaders today are significantly more exposed publicly than their analog predecessors. Therefore, according to Bennis ( 2013 ) leadership in the digital era needs to be learned through embracing transparency and adaptive capacity (specifically resilience as the ability to rebound from problems and crisis).

Finally, the vast extent and complexity of digital transformation leads to the emergence of an additional position at the top management level—the Chief Digital Officer (Dremel et al. 2017 ; Tumbas et al. 2017 ). Given the immense challenges of digital transformation and the claim for a new mindset and different skills, CEOs or even CIOs are conceivably not the best match (Singh and Hess 2017 ). Particularly not if they are expected to drive digital transformation in addition to their original tasks.

4.3.2 Managerial and organizational capabilities

Our analysis suggests that in order to effectively drive digital transformation additional and refined capabilities are required—both managerial and organizational (Li et al. 2017 )—in comparison to the analogue world.

At the managerial level, for one thing, a much faster strategy and implementation cycle is needed to cope with the pace of digital transformation (Daniel and Wilson 2003 ). The turbulent and ever-changing digital environment is forcing managers to make decisions and implement strategies significantly faster than they had been previously required to. In order to study managerial capabilities in the context of digital transformation, some studies have adopted the theory of dynamic capabilities (Daniel and Wilson 2003 ; Li et al. 2017 ; Yeow et al. 2018 ) as introduced by Teece et al. ( 1997 ), Teece ( 2007 , 2014 ). In particular, results indicate that dynamic capabilities may support the refinement of digital strategy and are therefore not separate from alignment, but on the contrary have the potential to enact and guide the process of aligning.

At the organizational level, one of the most intriguing challenges for incumbents will be to manage the ambidexterity of capabilities in terms of analog and digital capabilities. Firms need to incorporate ‘old’ and ‘new’ capabilities into their organizational structure in a complementary and not impeding way. In addition, capabilities in two further areas are of particular importance to many firms. First, capabilities to implement and operate in networks (Bharadwaj et al. 2013 ), platforms (Li et al. 2017 ; Sebastian et al. 2017 ), and ecosystems (El Sawy et al. 2016 ; Weill and Woerner 2015 ). Depending on contextual factors like for example their industry or business model, companies must learn to take advantage of network effects in terms of complementary capabilities while also learn how to become more of an ecosystem rather than continue managing value chains. Second, in the digital era it is essential to develop sensing capabilities, such as entrepreneurial alertness and environmental scanning (Kohli and Melville 2019 ), in order to identify new ideas and critically evaluate, design, modify and eventually deliver new business models (Berman 2012 ; Daniel and Wilson 2003 ).

4.3.3 Company culture

Digital transformation is not exclusively a technology-driven challenge but requires deep cultural change. Everyone within the organization must be prepared with an adaptive skill set and digital know-how. Two major insights can be identified within the existing literature. First, digital transformation demands a data-sharing and data-driven corporate culture (Dremel et al. 2017 ). Data as such must be recognized much more as a valuable resource and an enabler to become a digital enterprise. This will require higher operational transparency in daily-business and work-routines and a data-sharing mindset among employees. In this sense, incumbents need to develop their informatic culture to an informational culture (Llopis et al. 2004 ). In comparison to an informatic culture, an informational culture values IT as a core element of strategic and tactical decisions and clearly understands the financial and transformative potential of digital technologies. Second, digital transformation may trigger cultural conflict between younger and comparably inexperienced digital employees and older but more experienced pre-digitization employees (Kohli and Johnson 2011 ). Management is well advised to prevent that two different cultures arise within the same organization—a group of employees who understand digital technologies and those who have a long-standing track record in the traditional business but are technologically lagging behind. Facilitating a learning friendly culture (Kohli and Melville 2019 ) and publicly affirming support and trust by the executive level may effectively mitigate such a potential cultural divide.

4.3.4 Work environment

Our review reveals that digital transformation is changing the daily work environment in incumbent firms in terms of work structures (Hansen and Sia 2015 ; Loebbecke and Picot 2015 ), job roles, and workplace requirements (White 2012 ). For example, digital interconnectivity enables the emergence of flexible and networked cross-location teams across the entire geographical company map. In this context, traditional hierarchical work structures dissolve and new opportunities emerge beyond company boundaries, such as the integration of external freelancers (Loebbecke and Picot 2015 ). Also, the implementation of a digital workplace becomes inevitable. Particularly for ‘born digital’ younger employees a digitally well-equipped workplace may represent a major criterion for their choice of employer (El Sawy et al. 2016 ). According to White ( 2012 ), a digital workplace must be adaptive, compliant, imaginative, predictive, and location-independent.

However, the most notable insight in this perspective is that—in addition to a potential cultural divide—digitization may effectively lead to a growing skills gap between pre-digitization workers and recently hired digitally savvy employees (Kohli and Johnson 2011 ). In fact, while digital technologies significantly help to optimize and accelerate many work processes and thereby increase productivity, incumbents must be aware that many employees might not keep pace with this digital high-speed train and feel left behind. It is unclear how such a tradeoff is considered and how firms could handle related conflicts.

5 Avoiding an ivory tower: drawing on existing knowledge from adjacent research fields

We assume that pre-existing knowledge on corporate transformation processes in general is partly already available and may provide implications for digital transformation. Therefore, at this point in our review, we aim to stimulate a theoretical discussion by identifying potential white spots abstracted from adjacent research fields. For this purpose, we additionally reviewed 28 studies from the literature on technological disruption (to gain technology-centric input) and 32 papers from corporate entrepreneurship (to expand the actor-centric view). By this, we supplement the pre-dominantly IS-based digital transformation literature with a broader management perspective. First, by reviewing the literature on disruptive innovations we hope to derive implications regarding technology adoption and integration. Burdened with the legacy of old technology, bureaucratic structures and core rigidities (Leonard-Barton 1992 ), incumbents may face major challenges in this respect during their digital transformation journey. Second, we expect corporate entrepreneurship to add a more holistic perspective on firm-internal aspects during the process of transformation, such as management contribution or the impact of knowledge and learning.

We rigorously conducted the same review and analysis process as for our digital transformation sample. A database and concept matrix (Webster and Watson 2002 ) for the sample on technological disruption and corporate entrepreneurship are provided in Tables  6 and 7 of “ Appendix ”. The data structures, which summarize the second order themes for both the actor-centric and technology-centric dimension of these additional research fields are illustrated in Figs.  5 and 6 of “ Appendix ”. Within the main body of this article, we only draw attention toward three key implications (Fig.  4 ). In the following, we provide a brief synthesis of these implications and their grounding in the respective literature. In a second step, we transfer and apply these implications to the context of digital transformation and integrate them into an agenda for future research opportunities.

Expanding the digital transformation high-level thematic map with insights from technological disruption and corporate entrepreneurship

5.1 Insights from technological disruption

Existing knowledge from the adoption of disruptive technologies suggests that in order to successfully integrate, commercialize or develop disruptive technologies incumbents need to create organizations that are independent from but interconnected in one way or another with the mainstream business (Bower and Christensen 1995 ). The reasons for this are manifold. For example, managers are encouraged to protect disruptive technologies from the processes and incentives that are targeted to serve established customers. Rather, disruptive innovations should be placed in separate new organizations that work with future customers for this technology (Bower and Christensen 1995 ; Gans 2016 ). Further, separation potentially helps to unravel the discord between viewing disruptive innovations as a threat or an opportunity. Exempted from obligations to a parent company, separate ventures are more likely to perceive a novel technology as an opportunity (Gilbert and Bower 2002 ). And lastly, a freestanding business also enables local adaptation and increased sensitivity to changes in the environment (Hill and Rothaermel 2003 ).

5.2 Insights from corporate entrepreneurship

Our review of the corporate entrepreneurship literature identifies two major implications that have not been (adequately) considered in digital transformation research yet.

First, the literature indicates that middle management plays a crucial role in redefining a firm’s strategic context and by this driving organizational transformation. A middle management perspective has thus far been completely neglected in digital transformation research. We see this as a major gap, since the middle layers of management are ‘where the action is’ (Floyd and Wooldridge 1999 , p. 124). Top management should control the level and the rate of change and ensure that entrepreneurial activities correspond to their strategic vision (Burgelman 1983 ), but middle managers at the implementation level are the driving force and key determinant behind organizational transformation. However, on the downside, middle managers may also represent a major barrier to organizational change (Thornberry 2001 ). Typically, managers have the task to minimize risks, make sure everything is compliant to the rules and perform their functional roles. Thus, middle managers usually have the most to lose from radical changes and are therefore often the least likely to be entrepreneurial or to support transformations (Thornberry 2001 ). In order to solve middle and operational manager’s risk-awareness and unleash their entrepreneurial spirit, research suggests encouraging autonomous behavior (Shimizu 2012 ). In sum, reviewing the literature on corporate entrepreneurship raises our awareness for the impact of hierarchy and management levels on organizational transformation (Hornsby et al. 2009 ).

Second, a closer cooperation and regular exchange between incumbents and start-ups in order to accelerate entrepreneurial transformation is proposed (Engel 2011 ; Kohler 2016 ). Incumbents should recognize start-up companies as a source of external innovation and develop suitable models for collaboration (e.g. corporate accelerators). In particular, incumbents are advised to implement three common best practices from successful start-ups in order to facilitate transformation: (1) working in small omni-functional teams, (2) goal-driven rapid development instead of bureaucratic processes, and (3) field-level exploration of market potential instead of complex and tedious quantitative models (Engel 2011 ). In addition, corporate entrepreneurship underlines the importance of organizational learning as a vehicle to drive and shape cultural transformation (Dess et al. 2003 ; Floyd and Wooldridge 1999 ; Zahra 2015 ). We come to understand that learning, and in fact also knowledge management, are intimately tied to the concept of organizational transformation. A culture of learning and knowledge drives experimentation, encourages the development of an adaptive skill set, reshapes competitive positioning, and opens the minds of employees to new realities (Zahra et al. 1999 ).

6 Opportunities for future research

Based on the cross-disciplinary perspectives from reviewing the literature on digital transformation, technological disruption and corporate entrepreneurship, we propose opportunities for future research on digital transformation. Using our thematic map as a lens to view future research opportunities, we focus on the two dimensions of technology and actor. For the technology-centric dimension we expand on the structural and operational integration of digital technologies and organizational transformation initiatives as well as gaining a deeper understanding of the pace of technological transformation. For the actor-centric dimension we address three topics: we start at the leadership level by emphasizing the relevance of middle management in digital transformation, after that we refer to the potential skills gap and threat of an employee divide in incumbent organizations induced by digital technologies, and finally we move beyond organizational boundaries to turn toward the potential benefits and drawbacks of cooperating with start-ups and pure digital companies to boost transformation. For each area, we propose a set of research questions. Altogether, the agenda is organized around five guiding topics (Table  3 ).

6.1 Integration of digital transformation within organizational structures and activities in incumbent firms

Our review of the literature on digital transformation reveals a knowledge gap regarding this topic. However, we do gain some interesting cross-disciplinary insights from technological disruption at this point. In fact, as already discussed, studies on technological disruption indicate that in order to successfully integrate, commercialize or develop disruptive technologies incumbents need to create organizations that are completely independent from but interconnected in one way or another with the mainstream business (Bower and Christensen 1995 ; Gans 2016 ; Gilbert and Bower 2002 ; Hill and Rothaermel 2003 ).

Thus, the question arises as to how incumbents should incorporate their digital transformation activities. Several options and interesting questions arise in this matter that future research may investigate on:

Which forms of organizational architecture are most suitable for digital transformation? Seamless integration of digital technologies requires building an agile and scalable digital infrastructure that enables continuous scalability of new initiatives (Sia et al. 2016 ). For example, Resca et al. ( 2013 ) suggest a platform-based organization. In addition, digital transformation demands a new kind of enterprise platform integration (El Sawy et al. 2016 ). Given the high intensity of interactive digital connectivity between the outside and inside of a company, traditional enterprise platforms (like ERP) and the ‘old’ supply chain management integration paradigm are in many cases not the most suitable solution anymore. Therefore, flexible IT is a key transformation resource in the digital world (Cha et al. 2015 ). Pursuing an open innovation approach might be another alternative for incumbents.

When and why is it an advantage/disadvantage to start digital transformation in a new organization which is completely independent from traditional business, as suggested by technological disruption research? Under what circumstances and why do spill - over - effects to the parent organization happen/not happen? ? For example, Ravensburger AG , a German toy and jigsaw puzzle company, founded Ravensburger Digital GmbH as a subsidiary in 2009. The purpose of the subsidiary was to become the firm’s digital competence center. In 2017, the digital subsidiary was reincorporated in the parent organization as a digital unit with the goal to apply their digital knowledge to transform the traditional business segments. We call for more qualitative case study research devoted to this question to develop our understanding in this topic.

How, when, and why do incumbents benefit from adopting a ‘let a hundred flowers bloom’ philosophy versus taking a ‘launch, learn, pivot’ approach? In the first scenario, a company would start its digital initiatives across all divisions simultaneously and locally to encourage broad experimentation. Such an approach was adopted by AmerisourceBergen Corp. , an American drug wholesale company. The company is convinced that digital transformation is a matter of culture that needs to be established across the entire organization. For this purpose, it implemented agile project teams throughout the entire enterprise, of which each focused on different aspects. On the downside, companies following such a broad approach may risk losing focus and at some point, the various initiatives may start competing against each other. Hence, we believe it is crucial to have a big picture in mind and accordingly allocate resources and attention very thoughtfully. Alternatively, incumbents may start with a pilot transformation project in a smaller market or subsidiary. Arguably, a major advantage is the opportunity to assure that customers are happy with the transformation results and everything is working out well before starting the large roll out in other markets. And it provides incumbents time to fine-tune their initiatives. For example, American medical company Alcon premiered their initial transformation efforts in Brazil before ramping up their rollout in 27 further countries.

6.2 Pace of digital transformation

The rapid pace of technological change is perhaps the most defining characteristic of digital transformation in distinction to previous IT-enabled transformations. Yet, as this topic is only addressed by four papers in our sample it is still to be studied in more depth. For example, there is consensus among the studies that the pace of change has accelerated significantly, however the parameters that define the pace of change remain yet to be defined. Further, we are informed that some industries like the newspaper business have been digitally transformed within a very short period of time (Karimi and Walter 2015 ), while other branches are still under transformation or are yet to be converted. We posit two exemplary research questions regarding the pace of digital transformation:

What are the parameters that define the pace of change? Our review reveals that the speed of product launches (Bharadwaj et al. 2013 ) and the time it takes to turn an idea into a business (Vey et al. 2017 ) are two potential indicators, but we certainly need to obtain a more comprehensive conceptualization at this point.

Why do industries adopt to digital transformation at a different speed? For example, consider front-runner industries like the media or publishing versus late-comers such as oil and gas. In this specific case, the easiness to dematerialize and digitize the product portfolio is certainly a main reason. However, other industries are less obvious, and we would like to invite future research to investigate upon these conditions. What are the parameters that define whether an industry is more or less transformative?

6.3 The role of middle management in digital transformation

We have learned from our review of the corporate entrepreneurship literature that middle managers are the locus of organizational transformation in incumbent firms (Floyd and Wooldridge 1999 ; Hornsby et al. 2002 , 2009 ; Shimizu 2012 ). While top management controls the level and rate of change, middle managers are in charge of execution (Burgelman 1983 ). Hence, one may conclude that middle managers are the kingpin of digital transformation. Yet, there is not a single paper in our sample that covers a middle management perspective in digital transformation. We believe that this subject has been highly neglected in research to this point and deserves far more attention in future. Several topics are particularly interesting:

How and why is digital transformation affecting the role, tasks and identity of middle managers? How and why do middle managers react to these changes? Based on our review, we expect a deep change in the nature of middle management’s role and influence in a ‘digitally transformed’ company ranging from administration to leadership aspects. Middle managers require a new attitude as they move from directing and controlling stable processes and people at the middle of hierarchy to managing resources and connecting people in the middle of networks. In addition, middle managers in the digital era must step up to their role of supporting, enabling, and coaching people to use the available digital tools. They are expected to facilitate the organization.

What kind of new responsibilities and functions in middle management hierarchy are required to accelerate digital transformation? The odds are that change fatigue might grow on employees and digital transformation may start faltering. For this purpose, horizontal functions such as business-process management layers or central administration platforms may be implemented (McKinsey & Company 2017 ). They could be shared across multiple initiatives within the organization and help to accelerate transformation.

Which mindset and digital literacy do middle managers need to be the driving force behind digital transformation? How, when, and why are middle managers motivated/not motivated to drive transformation? Research on corporate entrepreneurship emphasizes that middle managers are often the least likely to support change as they are inherently risk-averse, hardly entrepreneurial and very attached to their functional routines (Thornberry 2001 ). In addition, middle managers may easily get stressed about their ‘sandwich’ position in-between senior management and the operational level. So how can we expect middle managers to be the speedboat of digital transformation? Also, incumbents need to carefully evaluate the existing digital skills and literacy of their middle managers. How comfortable do they feel with digital tools, social media, the cloud and similar trends? They may not fulfill their coaching and leadership role if they heavily struggle with technology in the first place.

How and why is digital transformation affecting the interface of the top management team (TMT) and middle managers? The relationship between the TMT and middle managers is a very special and important relationship which significantly affects both strategy formulation and the quality of implementation. Middle managers are the organizational ‘linking pins’ between top and operational level and thus heavily rely on a good exchange with their superiors. To what extent and in which ways does digital transformation affect this special leader–follower relationship? How are digital technologies changing the speed and quality of information exchange? What is the impact on the inter-personal level?

What is the impact of digital transformation on the overall importance of the middle management layer? Since the 1950s, research indicates the decline of middle managers in terms of both numbers and influence (Dopson and Stewart 1993 ; Leavitt and Whisler 1958 ; Pinsonneault and Kraemer 1997 ). The shift in emphasis from planning and controlling to speed and flexibility is severely affecting the assumedly ‘slow’ middle. Are middle managers afraid that digital technologies will replace most of their traditional tasks and functions, e.g. communicating and monitoring strategy? Will digitalization naturally empower lower level operational managers at the bottom and consequently eliminate the middle layer?

6.4 A growing skills gap and threat of an employee divide

Given the complexity and explosive pace of digital technologies, there is a threat of a growing skills gap between pre-digitization workers and recently hired digitally savvy employees (Kohli and Johnsons 2011 ). A couple of topics are particularly interesting for future research:

How, when and why are incumbents able/unable to mitigate a growing skills gap and employee divide in the face of digital transformation? Given the increased complexity of digital technologies, traditional IT trainings may not be effective anymore. In a similar vein, how could different levels of knowledge and experience residing within different employees be integrated in the context of digital transformation? Future research might examine the mechanisms required for facilitating or hindering such an integration.

How and when are incumbents able/unable to incorporate ‘old’ and ‘new’ capabilities within their organization? On the one hand firms need to develop new capabilities to continuously transform their business, while on the other hand they must leverage their existing knowledge and skills in order to maintain their existing operations. Thus, for the time of transformation incumbents need to develop multiple, often inconsistent competencies simultaneously. In this context, how do firms ensure not to lose focus while mastering the challenge of ambidexterity in times of digital transformation?

Who in the company is managing the development and transformation of skills (e.g. HR, senior leadership, IT division, functional teams, employees etc .), and how and why does that impact outcomes of digital transformation ? This question is not addressed by current research at all. However, according to a survey (Capgemini Consulting 2013) this lack of alignment with digital strategy is rather worrisome. Responsibilities for skills transformation and development in times of digitization need to be clearly defined and allocated. Empirical academic research in this direction might be helpful to understand the status-quo in incumbent firms regarding this issue.

6.5 Cooperation with startups and pure tech companies to accelerate digital transformation

Corporate entrepreneurship proposes a closer cooperation and regular exchange between incumbents and start-ups in order to accelerate entrepreneurial transformation (Engel 2011 ; Kohler 2016 ). In fact, start-ups are often perceived as the forerunners of digital transformation. They are praised for faster innovation capabilities, higher levels of agility, a culture of risk-taking, and supremely digitized processes and workflows. In contrast, incumbents have more experience, access to capital, established brand trust and a huge customer base. Hence, a cooperation between start-ups and incumbents may be beneficial for both parties. In addition, non-tech incumbents may also consider cooperating with pure digital players which are beyond their start-up phase but are important knowledge carriers in digital matters. Two topics are particularly interesting:

Assuming that successful start - ups have a good digital culture — what are the constituent pillars of such a digital culture? And how could incumbents incorporate these “best practices” and “lessons learned”?

What are the benefits of employee exchange programs with technology companies or start - ups to scale - up digital skills? For example, in early 2008 consumer goods giant Procter and Gamble and Google have been swapping two dozen employees in an effort to foster creativity, exchange thoughts on online advertisement and strengthen their mutual relationship. This program worked very well for both sides.

7 Limitations and conclusion

Our review is not without limitations. First, the specific objectives and nature of our filtering process applied during the review naturally come with a certain selection bias. For example, data collection, analysis and interpretation remain influenced by the subjective assessments of the researchers. Also, despite being the common rule within systematic literature reviews, searching exclusively in peer-reviewed academic journals might have omitted some relevant research contained in books or dissertations. However, by means of a rigorous and transparent search process, an as complete as possible review sample was collected and analyzed subsequently. Second, using a high-level thematic map for such a complex multi-dimensional phenomenon like digital transformation highlights particular connections while it potentially fails to capture others. Specifically, critics may point to the lack of analytical depth within each second order theme. However, we believe that within the limited scope of a review our broad thematic description nevertheless adds value to the advancement of this field and should rather be seen as a holistic starting point for future research to dive deeper into the characteristics of sub-themes of digital transformation. Finally, we are aware that our focus on the organizational level of digital transformation within the private sector does not fully capture the implications of digital transformation for our society, as it also occurs at various other levels, such as the individual level or public sector. As such, future researchers may apply alternative approaches to review and synthesize the existing literature on digital transformation. For example, in contrast to our inductive method to code and analyze our sample, it may also be interesting to apply a more deductive and pre-structured method, in particular when focusing on a deeper understanding of the sub-themes emerging from our analysis. Accordingly, future research could benefit from adopting a phenomenon-based research strategy as proposed by von Krogh et al. ( 2012 ).

Concluding, our paper contributes to the extant discussion by consolidating, mapping and analyze the existing research on digital transformation, sharing important macro- and microlevel observations in the literature and proposing corresponding future research directions. Emerging from our review of 58 studies, we develop a thematic map which identifies technology and actor as the two aggregate dimensions of digital transformation and that elaborates on the predominant contextual concepts (second order themes) within these dimensions. From a macrolevel perspective, we observe that the status-quo of digital transformation literature is rather diverse, in a sense that papers discuss topics across various clusters and concepts. Further, we find some degree of diversity in the theoretical foundations drawn upon as well as confirm that the existing literature in general is scarce regarding quantitative empirical evidence. Another important contribution of our paper is bringing different lenses together by integrating knowledge from related disciplinary areas outside IS management, such as technological disruption and corporate entrepreneurship. With our review, we hope to provide a comprehensive and solid foundation for the on-going discussions on digital transformation and to stimulate future research on this exciting topic.

The development of clear and precise aims and objectives; pre-planned methods; a comprehensive search of all potentially relevant articles; the use of explicit, reproducible criteria in the selection of articles; an appraisal of the quality of the research and the strength of the findings; a synthesis of individual studies using an explicit analytic framework; and a balanced, impartial and comprehensible presentation of the results.

The search included Academy of Management Journal , Administrative Science Quarterly , Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Journal of Management Studies , Strategic Management Journal .

The search included European Journal of Information Systems , Information Systems Journal , Information Systems Research , Journal of the Association for Information Systems , Journal of Information Technology , Journal of Management Information Systems , Journal of Strategic Information Systems , MIS Quarterly , MISQ Executive .

Ahuja G, Morris Lampert C (2001) Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strateg Manag J 22:521–543

Google Scholar  

Alos-Simo L, Verdu-Jover AJ, Gomez-Gras JM (2017) How transformational leadership facilitates e-business adoption. Ind Manag Data Syst 117:382–397

Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm Sci Q 35:604–633

Ash CG, Burn JM (2003) Assessing the benefits from e-business transformation through effective enterprise management. Eur J Inf Syst 12:297–308

Bartunek JM, Rynes SL, Ireland RD (2006) What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter. Acad Manag J 49:9–15

Bennis W (2013) Leadership in a digital world: embracing transparency and adaptive capacity. MIS Q 37:635–636

Bergek A, Berggren C, Magnusson T, Hobday M (2013) Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: destruction, disruption or creative accumulation? Res Policy 42:1210–1224

Berman SJ (2012) Digital transformation: opportunities to create new business models. Strategy Leadersh 40:16–24

Berman SJ, Davidson S, Ikeda K, Korsten PJ, Marshall A (2016) How successful firms guide innovation: insights and strategies of leading CEOs. Strategy Leadersh 44:21–28

Besson P, Rowe F (2012) Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation: a transdisciplinary review and new directions. J Strateg Inf Syst 21:103–124

Bharadwaj A, El Sawy O, Pavlou P, Venkatraman N (2013) Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q 37:471–482

Birkinshaw J (1997) Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: the characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strateg Manag J 18:207–229

Bower JL, Christensen CM (1995) Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harv Bus Rev 73:43–53

Burgelman RA (1983) Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: insights from a process study. Manag Sci 29:1349–1364

Cha KJ, Hwang T, Gregor S (2015) An integrative model of IT-enabled organizational transformation: a multiple case study. Manag Decis 53:1755–1770

Chatterjee D, Grewal R, Sambamurthy V (2002) Shaping up for e-commerce: institutional enablers of the organizational assimilation of web technologies. MIS Q 26:65–89

Chen J, Nadkarni S (2017) It’s about time! CEOs’ temporal dispositions, temporal leadership, and corporate entrepreneurship. Adm Sci Q 62:31–66

Christensen CM (1997) The innovator’s dilemma. When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

Christensen CM, Raynor ME (2003) Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harv Bus Rev 81:66–75

Corbett A, Covin JG, O’Connor GC, Tucci CL (2013) Corporate entrepreneurship: state-of-the-art research and a future research agenda. J Prod Innov Manag 30:812–820

Corley KG, Gioia DA (2004) Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Adm Sci Q 49:173–208

Covin JG, Miles MP (1999) Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract 23:47–63

Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J Manag Stud 47:1154–1191

Cui M, Pan SL (2015) Developing focal capabilities for e-commerce adoption: a resource orchestration perspective. Inf Manag 52(2):200–209

Daniel EM, Wilson HN (2003) The role of dynamic capabilities in e-business transformation. Eur J Inf Syst 12:282–296

Danneels E (2004) Disruptive technology reconsidered: a critique and research agenda. J Prod Innov Manag 21:246–258

DaSilva CM, Trkman P, Desouza K, Lindič J (2013) Disruptive technologies: a business model perspective on cloud computing. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 25:1161–1173

Denyer D, Neely A (2004) Introduction to special issue: innovation and productivity performance in the UK. Int J Manag Rev 5:131–135

Dess GG, Ireland RD, Zahra SA, Floyd SW, Janney JJ, Lane PJ (2003) Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. J Manag Stud 29:351–378

Dijkman RM, Sprenkels B, Peeters T, Janssen A (2015) Business models for the Internet of Things. Int J Inf Manag 35(6):672–678

Doherty NF, King M (2005) From technical to socio-technical change: tackling the human and organizational aspects of systems development projects. Eur J Inf Syst 14:1–5

Dopson S, Stewart R (1993) Information technology, organizational restructuring and the future of middle management. New Technol Work Employ 8(1):10–20

Downes L, Nunes P (2013) Big bang disruption. Harv Bus Rev 91:44–56

Dremel C, Wulf J, Herterich MM, Waizmann JC, Brenner W (2017) How AUDI AG established big data analytics in its digital transformation. MIS Q Exec 16(2):81–100

Dushnitsky G, Lenox MJ (2005) When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures? Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates. Res Policy 34(5):615–639

El Sawy OA, Malhotra A, Park Y, Pavlou PA (2010) Research commentary-seeking the configurations of digital ecodynamics: it takes three to tango. Inf Syst Res 21(4):835–848

El Sawy OA, Kræmmergaard P, Amsinck H, Vinther AL (2016) How LEGO built the foundations and enterprise capabilities for digital leadership. MIS Q Exec 15(2):141–166

Engel JS (2011) Accelerating corporate innovation: lessons from the venture capital model. Res-Technol Manag 54(3):36–43

Evens T (2010) Value networks and changing business models for the digital television industry. J Media Bus Stud 7(4):41–58

Fichman RG, Dos Santos BL, Zheng Z (2014) Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Q 38(2):329–A15

Fisch C, Block J (2018) Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Manag Rev Q 68:103–106

Floyd SW, Wooldridge B (1999) Knowledge creation and social networks in corporate entrepreneurship: the renewal of organizational capability. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract 23(3):123–144

Fuetsch E, Suess-Reyes J (2017) Research on innovation in family businesses: are we building an ivory tower? J Fam Bus Manag 7(1):44–92

Gans JS (2016) Keep calm and manage disruption. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 57(3):83–90

Gawer A, Cusumano MA (2014) Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. J Prod Inov Manag 31(3):417–433

Gerstner WC, König A, Enders A, Hambrick DC (2013) CEO narcissism, audience engagement, and organizational adoption of technological discontinuities. Adm Sci Q 58(2):257–291

Gerth AB, Peppard J (2016) The dynamics of CIO derailment: how CIOs come undone and how to avoid it. Bus Horiz 59(1):61–70

Gilbert C, Bower JL (2002) Disruptive change. When trying harder is part of the problem. Harv Bus Rev 80(5):94–101

Gioia DA, Thomas JB, Clark SM, Chittipeddi K (1994) Symbolism and strategic change in academia: the dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Org Sci 5(3):363–383

Granados N, Gupta A (2013) Transparency strategy: competing with information in a digital world. MIS Q 37(2):637–641

Grover V, Kohli R (2013) Revealing your hand: caveats in implementing digital business strategy. MIS Q 37(2):655–662

Günther WA, Mehrizi MHR, Huysman M, Feldberg F (2017) Debating big data: a literature review on realizing value from big data. J Strateg Inf Syst 26:191–209

Günzel F, Holm AB (2013) One size does not fit all—understanding the front-end and back-end of business model innovation. Int J Innov Manag 17(1):1340002-1–1340002-34

Guth WD, Ginsberg A (1990) Guest editors’ introduction: corporate entrepreneurship. Strateg Manag J 11:5–15

Habtay SR, Holmén M (2014) Incumbents’ responses to disruptive business model innovation: the moderating role of technology vs. market-driven innovation. Int J Entrep Innov Manag 18(4):289–309

Hagberg J, Sundstrom M, Egels-Zandén N (2016) The digitalization of retailing: an exploratory framework. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 44(7):694–712

Hansen R, Sia SK (2015) Hummel’s digital transformation toward omnichannel retailing: key lessons learned. MIS Q Exec 14(2):51–66

Hess T, Matt C, Benlian A, Wiesböck F (2016) Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Q Exec 15(2):123–139

Hill CW, Rothaermel FT (2003) The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad Manag Rev 28(2):257–274

Hitt M, Ireland R, Camp S, Sexton D (2001) Strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strateg Manag J 22:479–491

Holm AB, Günzel F, Ulhøi JP (2013) Openness in innovation and business models: lessons from the newspaper industry. Int J Technol Manag 61(3/4):324–348

Hornsby JS, Kuratko DF, Zahra SA (2002) Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale. J Bus Vent 17(3):253–273

Hornsby JS, Kuratko DF, Shepherd DA, Bott JP (2009) Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions: examining perception and position. J Bus Ventur 24(3):236–247

Hu H, Huang T, Zeng Q, Zhang S (2016) The role of institutional entrepreneurship in building digital ecosystem: a case study of Red Collar Group (RCG). Int J Inf Manag 36(3):496–499

Ireland RD, Covin JG, Kuratko DF (2009) Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract 33(1):19–46

Ives B, Palese B, Rodriguez JA (2016) Enhancing customer service through the internet of things and digital data streams. MIS Q Exec 15(4):279–297

Johnson M (2010) Barriers to innovation adoption: a study of e-markets. Ind Manag Data Syst 110(2):157–174

Johnson MW, Christensen CM, Kagermann H (2008) Reinventing your business model. Harv Bus Rev 86(12):50–59

Jones O, Gatrell C (2014) Editorial: the future of writing and reviewing for IJMR. Int J Manag Rev 16(3):249–264

Karimi J, Walter Z (2015) The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: a factor-based study of the newspaper industry. J Manag Inf Syst 32(1):39–81

Karimi J, Walter Z (2016) Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation adoption, and its performance: the case of the newspaper industry. Long Range Plan 49(3):342–360

Kauffman RJ, Walden EA (2001) Economics and electronic commerce: survey and directions for research. Int J Electric Commun 5(4):5–116

Keen P, Williams R (2013) Value architectures for digital business: beyond the business model. MIS Q 37(2):643–648

Khandwalla PN (1987) Generators of pioneering-innovative management: some Indian evidence. Org Stud 8(1):39–59

Koen PA, Bertels H, Elsum IR, Orroth M, Tollett BL (2010) Breakthrough innovation dilemmas. Res Technol Manag 53(6):48–51

Kohler T (2016) Corporate accelerators: building bridges between corporations and startups. Bus Horiz 59(3):347–357

Kohli R, Johnson S (2011) Digital transformation in latecomer industries: CIO and CEO Leadership Lessons from Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. MIS Q Exec 10(4):141–156

Kohli R, Melville NP (2019) Digital innovation: a review and synthesis. Inf Syst J 29(1):200–223

Kuratko DF, Covin JG, Hornsby JS (2014) Why implementing corporate innovation is so difficult. Bus Horiz 57(5):647–655

Lant TK, Mezias SJ (1990) Managing discontinuous change: a simulation study of organizational learning and entrepreneurship. Strateg Manag J 11:147–179

Lanzolla G, Anderson J (2008) Digital transformation. Bus Strateg Rev 19(2):72–76

Lavie D (2006) Capability reconfiguration: an analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Acad Manag Rev 31(1):153–174

Leavitt HJ, Whisler TL (1958) Management in the 1980’s. In: Technology, organizations and innovation. London and New York, pp 41–48

Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg Manag J 13(S1):111–125

Leong C, Tan B, Xiao X, Tan FTC, Sun Y (2017) Nurturing a FinTech ecosystem: the case of a youth microloan startup in China. Int J Inf Manag 37(2):92–97

Li L, Su F, Zhang W, Mao JY (2017) Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: a capability perspective. Inf Sys J 28(6):1129–1157

Ling YAN, Simsek Z, Lubatkin MH, Veiga JF (2008) Transformational leadership’s role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: examining the CEO-TMT interface. Acad Manag J 51(3):557–576

Liu DY, Chen SW, Chou TC (2011) Resource fit in digital transformation: lessons learned from the CBC Bank global e-banking project. Manag Decis 49(10):1728–1742

Llopis J, Gonzalez MR, Gasco JL (2004) Transforming the firm for the digital era: an organizational effort towards an E-culture. Hum Syst Manag 23(4):213–225

Locke K (2001) Grounded theory in management research. Sage, London

Loebbecke C, Picot A (2015) Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: a research agenda. J Strateg Inf Syst 24(3):149–157

Lucas HC Jr, Goh JM (2009) Disruptive technology: how Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. J Strateg Inf Syst 18(1):46–55

Lumpkin GT, Dess GG (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad Manag J 2(1):135–172

Lyytinen K, Yoo Y, Boland RJ Jr (2016) Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Inf Sys J 26(1):47–75

Majchrzak A, Markus ML, Wareham J (2016) Designing for digital transformation: lessons for information systems research from the study of ICT and societal challenges. MIS Q 40(2):267–277

Marion T, Dunlap D, Friar J (2012) Instilling the entrepreneurial spirit in your RandD team: what large firms can learn from successful start-ups. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 59(2):323–337

Markus ML (2004) Technochange management: using IT to drive organizational change. J Inf Technol 19(1):4–20

Markus ML, Benjamin RI (1997) The magic bullet theory in IT-enabled transformation. Sloan Manag Rev 38:55–68

Markus ML, Loebbecke C (2013) Commoditized digital processes and business community platforms: new opportunities and challenges for digital business strategies. MIS Q 37(2):649–654

Matt C, Hess T, Benlian A (2015) Digital transformation strategies. Bus Inf Syst Eng 57(5):339–343

Mazzei MJ, Noble D (2017) Big data dreams: a framework for corporate strategy. Bus Horiz 60(3):405–414

McKinsey & Company (2017) A CEO guide for avoiding the ten traps that derail digital transformations. Digital McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/a-ceo-guide-for-avoiding-the-ten-traps-that-derail-digital-transformations . Accessed 28 July 2018

McWilliams A, Siegel D, Van Fleet DD (2005) Scholarly journals as producers of knowledge: theory and empirical evidence based on data envelopment analysis. Organ Res Methods 8:185–201

Meyer AD, Brooks GR, Goes JB (1990) Environmental jolts and industry revolutions: organizational responses to discontinuous change. Strateg Manag J 11:93–110

Miller D (1983) The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manag Sci 29:770–791

Mithas S, Tafti A, Mitchell W (2013) How a firm’s competitive environment and digital strategic posture influence digital business strategy. MIS Q 37(2):511–536

Moreau F (2013) The disruptive nature of digitization: the case of the recorded music industry. Int J Arts Manag 15(2):18–31

Morton MS (1991) The corporation of the 1990s: information technology and organizational transformation. Oxford University Press, New York

Mulrow CD (1994) Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. Br Manag J 309:597–599

Naman JL, Slevin DP (1993) Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical tests. Strateg Manag J 14:137–153

Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M (2017) Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Q 41(1):223–238. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41:1.03

Nason RS, McKelvie A, Lumpkin GT (2015) The role of organizational size in the heterogeneous nature of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 45(2):279–304

Ng IC, Wakenshaw SY (2017) The Internet-of-Things: review and research directions. Int J Res Market 34(1):3–21

Obal M (2013) Why do incumbents sometimes succeed? Investigating the role of interorganizational trust on the adoption of disruptive technology. Ind Market Manag 42(6):900–908

Orlikowski WJ (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Inf Syst Res 7(1):63–92

Pagani M (2013) Digital business strategy and value creation: framing the dynamic cycle of control points. MIS Q 37(2):617–632

Paré G, Trudel MC, Jaana M, Kitsiou S (2015) Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Inf Manag 52(2):183–199

Peltola S (2012) Can an old firm learn new tricks? A corporate entrepreneurship approach to organizational renewal. Bus Horiz 55(1):43–51

Pinsonneault A, Kraemer KL (1997) Middle management downsizing: an empirical investigation of the impact of information technology. Manag Sci 43(5):659–679

Pittaway L, Robertson M, Munir K, Denyer D, Neely A (2004) Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. Int J Manag Rev 5:137–168

Ranganathan C, Watson-Manheim MB, Keeler J (2004) Bringing professionals on board: lessons on executing IT-enabled organizational transformation. MIS Q Exec 3(3):151–160

Rayna T, Striukova L (2016) From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: how 3D printing is changing business model innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 102:214–224

Resca A, Za S, Spagnoletti P (2013) Digital platforms as sources for organizational and strategic transformation: a case study of the Midblue project. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 8(2):71–84

Rice MP, O’Connor GC, Peters LS, Morone JG (1998) Managing discontinuous innovation. Res-Technol Manag 41(3):52–58

Rigby DK, Sutherland J, Takeuchi H (2016) Embracing agile. Harv Bus Rev 94(5):40–50

Rindova VP, Kotha S (2001) Continuous “morphing”: competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Acad Manag J 44(6):1263–1280

Rowe F (2014) What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. Eur J Inf Syst 23(3):241–255

Roy R, Sarkar MB (2016) Knowledge, firm boundaries, and innovation: mitigating the incumbent’s curse during radical technological change. Strateg Manag J 37(5):835–854

Sabatier V, Craig-Kennard A, Mangematin V (2012) When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: insights from the drugs industry. Technol Forecast Soc Change 79(5):949–962

Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Q 27(2):237–263

Sandström CG (2016) The non-disruptive emergence of an ecosystem for 3D Printing—insights from the hearing aid industry’s transition 1989–2008. Technol Forecast Soc Change 102:160–168

Schendel D (1990) Introduction to the special issue on corporate entrepreneurship. Strateg Manag J 11:1–3

Schollhammer H (1982) Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In: Kent CA, Sexton DL, Vesper KH (eds) Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 209–229

Schuchmann D, Seufert S (2015) Corporate learning in times of digital transformation: a conceptual framework and service portfolio for the learning function in banking organisations. Int J Adv Corp Learn 8(1):31–39

Scott WR (1992) Organizations rational, natural, and open systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

Sebastian IM, Ross JW, Beath C, Mocker M, Moloney KG, Fonstad NO (2017) How big old companies navigate digital transformation. MIS Q Exec 16(3):197–213

Setia P, Venkatesh V, Joglekar S (2013) Leveraging digital technologies: How information quality leads to localized capabilities and customer service performance. MIS Q 37(2):565–590

Seufert S, Meier C (2016) From eLearning to digital transformation: a framework and implications for LandD. Int J Adv Corp Learn 9(2):27–33

Shaughnessy H (2016) Harnessing platform-based business models to power disruptive innovation. Strategy Leadersh 44(5):6–14

Shimizu K (2012) Risks of corporate entrepreneurship: autonomy and agency issues. Org Sci 23(1):194–206

Sia SK, Soh C, Weill P (2016) How DBS bank pursued a digital business strategy. MIS Q Exec 15(2):105–121

Siebels J, Knyphausen-Aufseß D (2012) A review of theory in family business research: the implications for corporate governance. Int J Manag Rev 14:280–304

Singh A, Hess T (2017) How chief digital officers promote the digital transformation of their companies. MIS Q Exec 16(1):1–17

Stopford JM, Baden-Fuller CW (1994) Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strateg Manag J 15(7):521–536

Svahn F, Mathiassen L, Lindgren R (2017) Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms: how Volvo cars managed competing concerns. MIS Q 41(1):239–253

Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350

Teece DJ (2014) A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. J Int Bus Stud 45(1):8–37

Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533

Templier M, Paré G (2015) A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37:112–137

Thompson JD, Bates FL (1957) Technology, organization, and administration. Adm Sci Q 2:325–342

Thornberry N (2001) Corporate entrepreneurship: antidote or oxymoron? Eur Manag J 19(5):526–533

Tongur S, Engwall M (2014) The business model dilemma of technology shifts. Technovation 34(9):525–535

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222

Tumbas S, Berente N, vom Brocke J (2017) Three types of chief digital officers and the reasons organizations adopt the role. MIS Q Exec 16(2):121–134

Turner T, Pennington WW (2015) Organizational networks and the process of corporate entrepreneurship: how the motivation, opportunity, and ability to act affect firm knowledge, learning, and innovation. Small Bus Econ 45(2):447–463

Turró A, Urbano D, Peris-Ortiz M (2014) Culture and innovation: the moderating effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. Technol Forecast Soc Change 88:360–369

Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Adm Sci Q 31:439–465

Urbano D, Turró A (2013) Conditioning factors for corporate entrepreneurship: an in (ex)ternal approach. Int Entrep Manag J 9(3):379–396

Utterback JM (1994) Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

Vecchiato R (2017) Disruptive innovation, managerial cognition, and technology competition outcomes. Technol Forecast Soc Change 116:116–128

Vey K, Fandel-Meyer T, Zipp JS, Schneider C (2017) Learning and development in times of digital transformation: facilitating a culture of change and innovation. Int J Adv Corp Learn 10(1):22–32

Vom Brocke J, Simons A, Riemer K, Niehaves B, Plattfaut R, Cleven A (2015) Standing on the shoulders of giants: challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37(1):9

von Krogh G, Rossi-Lamastra C, Haefliger S (2012) Phenomenon-based research in management and organisation science: when is it rigorous and does it matter? Long Range Plan 45(4):277–298

von Pechmann F, Midler C, Maniak R, Charue-Duboc F (2015) Managing systemic and disruptive innovation: lessons from the Renault Zero Emission Initiative. Ind Corp Change 24(3):677–695

Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26(2)::xiii–xxiii

Weill P, Woerner SL (2015) Thriving in an increasingly digital ecosystem. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 56(4):27–34

White M (2012) Digital workplaces: vision and reality. Bus Inf Rev 29(4):205–214

Woodward J (1965) Industrial organization theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New York

Yeow A, Soh C, Hansen R (2018) Aligning with new digital strategy: a dynamic capabilities approach. J Strateg Inf Syst 27(1):43–58

Yoo Y, Henfridsson O, Lyytinen K (2010) Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Inf Syst Res 21(4):724–735

Yoo Y, Boland RJ Jr, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organ Sci 23(5):1398–1408

Yu D, Hang CC (2010) A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. Int J Manag Rev 12(4):435–452

Zahra SA (1993) A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: a critique and extension. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract 17(4):5–21

Zahra SA (1996) Goverance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Acad Manag J 39(6):1713–1735

Zahra SA (2015) Corporate entrepreneurship as knowledge creation and conversion: the role of entrepreneurial hubs. Small Bus Econ 44(4):727–735

Zahra SA, Covin JG (1995) Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship–performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis. J Bus Ventur 10(1):43–58

Zahra SA, Nielsen AP, Bogner WC (1999) Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence development. Entrepreneursh Theory Pract 23(3):169–189

Zammuto RF, Griffith TL, Majchrzak A, Dougherty DJ, Faraj S (2007) Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Org Sci 18(5):749–762

Zeng Q, Chen W, Huang L (2008) E-business transformation: an analysis framework based on critical organizational dimensions. Tsinghua Sci Technol 13(3):408–413

Download references

Acknowledgements

Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chair of Innovation, Technology & Entrepreneurship, Zeppelin University, Am Seemooser Horn 20, 88045, Friedrichshafen, Germany

Swen Nadkarni & Reinhard Prügl

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Swen Nadkarni .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

See Tables  4 , 5 , 6 and 7 and Figs.  5 and 6 .

Data structure for the technology-centric dimension of technological disruption

Data structure for the technology-centric dimension of corporate entrepreneurship

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nadkarni, S., Prügl, R. Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. Manag Rev Q 71 , 233–341 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7

Download citation

Received : 14 July 2019

Accepted : 28 March 2020

Published : 18 April 2020

Issue Date : April 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital transformation
• Digital disruption
• Technological disruption
• Corporate entrepreneurship
• Literature review
• Research agenda

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 February 2024

Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective

• Chengliang Wang 1 ,
• Xiaojiao Chen 1 ,
• Teng Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5198-7261 2 , 3 ,
• Yidan Liu 1 , 4 &
• Yuhui Jing 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  256 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

4816 Accesses

1 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies
• Science, technology and society

Amidst the global digital transformation of educational institutions, digital technology has emerged as a significant area of interest among scholars. Such technologies have played an instrumental role in enhancing learner performance and improving the effectiveness of teaching and learning. These digital technologies also ensure the sustainability and stability of education during the epidemic. Despite this, a dearth of systematic reviews exists regarding the current state of digital technology application in education. To address this gap, this study utilized the Web of Science Core Collection as a data source (specifically selecting the high-quality SSCI and SCIE) and implemented a topic search by setting keywords, yielding 1849 initial publications. Furthermore, following the PRISMA guidelines, we refined the selection to 588 high-quality articles. Using software tools such as CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator, we reviewed these 588 publications to identify core authors (such as Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards), highly productive countries/regions (England, Australia, USA), key institutions (Monash University, Australian Catholic University), and crucial journals in the field ( Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , British Journal of Educational Technology ). Evolutionary analysis reveals four developmental periods in the research field of digital technology education application: the embryonic period, the preliminary development period, the key exploration, and the acceleration period of change. The study highlights the dual influence of technological factors and historical context on the research topic. Technology is a key factor in enabling education to transform and upgrade, and the context of the times is an important driving force in promoting the adoption of new technologies in the education system and the transformation and upgrading of education. Additionally, the study identifies three frontier hotspots in the field: physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. This study presents a clear framework for digital technology application in education, which can serve as a valuable reference for researchers and educational practitioners concerned with digital technology education application in theory and practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

A bibliometric analysis of knowledge mapping in Chinese education digitalization research from 2012 to 2022

Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: a systematic literature review

Education big data and learning analytics: a bibliometric analysis

Introduction.

Digital technology has become an essential component of modern education, facilitating the extension of temporal and spatial boundaries and enriching the pedagogical contexts (Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). The advent of mobile communication technology has enabled learning through social media platforms (Szeto et al. 2015 ; Pires et al. 2022 ), while the advancement of augmented reality technology has disrupted traditional conceptions of learning environments and spaces (Perez-Sanagustin et al., 2014 ; Kyza and Georgiou, 2018 ). A wide range of digital technologies has enabled learning to become a norm in various settings, including the workplace (Sjöberg and Holmgren, 2021 ), home (Nazare et al. 2022 ), and online communities (Tang and Lam, 2014 ). Education is no longer limited to fixed locations and schedules, but has permeated all aspects of life, allowing learning to continue at any time and any place (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2016 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ).

The advent of digital technology has led to the creation of several informal learning environments (Greenhow and Lewin, 2015 ) that exhibit divergent form, function, features, and patterns in comparison to conventional learning environments (Nygren et al. 2019 ). Consequently, the associated teaching and learning processes, as well as the strategies for the creation, dissemination, and acquisition of learning resources, have undergone a complete overhaul. The ensuing transformations have posed a myriad of novel issues, such as the optimal structuring of teaching methods by instructors and the adoption of appropriate learning strategies by students in the new digital technology environment. Consequently, an examination of the principles that underpin effective teaching and learning in this environment is a topic of significant interest to numerous scholars engaged in digital technology education research.

Over the course of the last two decades, digital technology has made significant strides in the field of education, notably in extending education time and space and creating novel educational contexts with sustainability. Despite research attempts to consolidate the application of digital technology in education, previous studies have only focused on specific aspects of digital technology, such as Pinto and Leite’s ( 2020 ) investigation into digital technology in higher education and Mustapha et al.’s ( 2021 ) examination of the role and value of digital technology in education during the pandemic. While these studies have provided valuable insights into the practical applications of digital technology in particular educational domains, they have not comprehensively explored the macro-mechanisms and internal logic of digital technology implementation in education. Additionally, these studies were conducted over a relatively brief period, making it challenging to gain a comprehensive understanding of the macro-dynamics and evolutionary process of digital technology in education. Some studies have provided an overview of digital education from an educational perspective but lack a precise understanding of technological advancement and change (Yang et al. 2022 ). Therefore, this study seeks to employ a systematic scientific approach to collate relevant research from 2000 to 2022, comprehend the internal logic and development trends of digital technology in education, and grasp the outstanding contribution of digital technology in promoting the sustainability of education in time and space. In summary, this study aims to address the following questions:

RQ1: Since the turn of the century, what is the productivity distribution of the field of digital technology education application research in terms of authorship, country/region, institutional and journal level?

RQ2: What is the development trend of research on the application of digital technology in education in the past two decades?

RQ3: What are the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education?

Literature review

Although the term “digital technology” has become ubiquitous, a unified definition has yet to be agreed upon by scholars. Because the meaning of the word digital technology is closely related to the specific context. Within the educational research domain, Selwyn’s ( 2016 ) definition is widely favored by scholars (Pinto and Leite, 2020 ). Selwyn ( 2016 ) provides a comprehensive view of various concrete digital technologies and their applications in education through ten specific cases, such as immediate feedback in classes, orchestrating teaching, and community learning. Through these specific application scenarios, Selwyn ( 2016 ) argues that digital technology encompasses technologies associated with digital devices, including but not limited to tablets, smartphones, computers, and social media platforms (such as Facebook and YouTube). Furthermore, Further, the behavior of accessing the internet at any location through portable devices can be taken as an extension of the behavior of applying digital technology.

The evolving nature of digital technology has significant implications in the field of education. In the 1890s, the focus of digital technology in education was on comprehending the nuances of digital space, digital culture, and educational methodologies, with its connotations aligned more towards the idea of e-learning. The advent and subsequent widespread usage of mobile devices since the dawn of the new millennium have been instrumental in the rapid expansion of the concept of digital technology. Notably, mobile learning devices such as smartphones and tablets, along with social media platforms, have become integral components of digital technology (Conole and Alevizou, 2010 ; Batista et al. 2016 ). In recent times, the burgeoning application of AI technology in the education sector has played a vital role in enriching the digital technology lexicon (Banerjee et al. 2021 ). ChatGPT, for instance, is identified as a novel educational technology that has immense potential to revolutionize future education (Rospigliosi, 2023 ; Arif, Munaf and Ul-Haque, 2023 ).

Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) conducted a comprehensive macroscopic survey of the use of digital technologies in the education sector and identified three distinct categories, namely technologies for assessment and feedback, mobile technologies, and Information Communication Technologies (ICT). This classification criterion is both macroscopic and highly condensed. In light of the established concept definitions of digital technology in the educational research literature, this study has adopted the characterizations of digital technology proposed by Selwyn ( 2016 ) and Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) as crucial criteria for analysis and research inclusion. Specifically, this criterion encompasses several distinct types of digital technologies, including Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Mobile tools, eXtended Reality (XR) Technologies, Assessment and Feedback systems, Learning Management Systems (LMS), Publish and Share tools, Collaborative systems, Social media, Interpersonal Communication tools, and Content Aggregation tools.

Methodology and materials

Research method: bibliometric.

The research on econometric properties has been present in various aspects of human production and life, yet systematic scientific theoretical guidance has been lacking, resulting in disorganization. In 1969, British scholar Pritchard ( 1969 ) proposed “bibliometrics,” which subsequently emerged as an independent discipline in scientific quantification research. Initially, Pritchard defined bibliometrics as “the application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other media of communication,” however, the definition was not entirely rigorous. To remedy this, Hawkins ( 2001 ) expanded Pritchard’s definition to “the quantitative analysis of the bibliographic features of a body of literature.” De Bellis further clarified the objectives of bibliometrics, stating that it aims to analyze and identify patterns in literature, such as the most productive authors, institutions, countries, and journals in scientific disciplines, trends in literary production over time, and collaboration networks (De Bellis, 2009 ). According to Garfield ( 2006 ), bibliometric research enables the examination of the history and structure of a field, the flow of information within the field, the impact of journals, and the citation status of publications over a longer time scale. All of these definitions illustrate the unique role of bibliometrics as a research method for evaluating specific research fields.

This study uses CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator to analyze data and create visualizations. Each of these three tools has its own strengths and can complement each other. CiteSpace and VOSviewer use set theory and probability theory to provide various visualization views in fields such as keywords, co-occurrence, and co-authors. They are easy to use and produce visually appealing graphics (Chen, 2006 ; van Eck and Waltman, 2009 ) and are currently the two most widely used bibliometric tools in the field of visualization (Pan et al. 2018 ). In this study, VOSviewer provided the data necessary for the Performance Analysis; Charticulator was then used to redraw using the tabular data exported from VOSviewer (for creating the chord diagram of country collaboration); this was to complement the mapping process, while CiteSpace was primarily utilized to generate keyword maps and conduct burst word analysis.

Data retrieval

This study selected documents from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) in the Web of Science Core Collection as the data source, for the following reasons:

(1) The Web of Science Core Collection, as a high-quality digital literature resource database, has been widely accepted by many researchers and is currently considered the most suitable database for bibliometric analysis (Jing et al. 2023a ). Compared to other databases, Web of Science provides more comprehensive data information (Chen et al. 2022a ), and also provides data formats suitable for analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace (Gaviria-Marin et al. 2019 ).

(2) The application of digital technology in the field of education is an interdisciplinary research topic, involving technical knowledge literature belonging to the natural sciences and education-related literature belonging to the social sciences. Therefore, it is necessary to select Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) as the sources of research data, ensuring the comprehensiveness of data while ensuring the reliability and persuasiveness of bibliometric research (Hwang and Tsai, 2011 ; Wang et al. 2022 ).

After establishing the source of research data, it is necessary to determine a retrieval strategy (Jing et al. 2023b ). The choice of a retrieval strategy should consider a balance between the breadth and precision of the search formula. That is to say, it should encompass all the literature pertaining to the research topic while excluding irrelevant documents as much as possible. In light of this, this study has set a retrieval strategy informed by multiple related papers (Mustapha et al. 2021 ; Luo et al. 2021 ). The research by Mustapha et al. ( 2021 ) guided us in selecting keywords (“digital” AND “technolog*”) to target digital technology, while Luo et al. ( 2021 ) informed the selection of terms (such as “instruct*,” “teach*,” and “education”) to establish links with the field of education. Then, based on the current application of digital technology in the educational domain and the scope of selection criteria, we constructed the final retrieval strategy. Following the general patterns of past research (Jing et al. 2023a , 2023b ), we conducted a specific screening using the topic search (Topics, TS) function in Web of Science. For the specific criteria used in the screening for this study, please refer to Table 1 .

Literature screening

Literature acquired through keyword searches may contain ostensibly related yet actually unrelated works. Therefore, to ensure the close relevance of literature included in the analysis to the research topic, it is often necessary to perform a manual screening process to identify the final literature to be analyzed, subsequent to completing the initial literature search.

The manual screening process consists of two steps. Initially, irrelevant literature is weeded out based on the title and abstract, with two members of the research team involved in this phase. This stage lasted about one week, resulting in 1106 articles being retained. Subsequently, a comprehensive review of the full text is conducted to accurately identify the literature required for the study. To carry out the second phase of manual screening effectively and scientifically, and to minimize the potential for researcher bias, the research team established the inclusion criteria presented in Table 2 . Three members were engaged in this phase, which took approximately 2 weeks, culminating in the retention of 588 articles after meticulous screening. The entire screening process is depicted in Fig. 1 , adhering to the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2021 ).

The process of obtaining and filtering the necessary literature data for research.

Data standardization

Nguyen and Hallinger ( 2020 ) pointed out that raw data extracted from scientific databases often contains multiple expressions of the same term, and not addressing these synonymous expressions could affect research results in bibliometric analysis. For instance, in the original data, the author list may include “Tsai, C. C.” and “Tsai, C.-C.”, while the keyword list may include “professional-development” and “professional development,” which often require merging. Therefore, before analyzing the selected literature, a data disambiguation process is necessary to standardize the data (Strotmann and Zhao, 2012 ; Van Eck and Waltman, 2019 ). This study adopted the data standardization process proposed by Taskin and Al ( 2019 ), mainly including the following standardization operations:

Firstly, the author and source fields in the data are corrected and standardized to differentiate authors with similar names.

Secondly, the study checks whether the journals to which the literature belongs have been renamed in the past over 20 years, so as to avoid the influence of periodical name change on the analysis results.

Finally, the keyword field is standardized by unifying parts of speech and singular/plural forms of keywords, which can help eliminate redundant entries in the knowledge graph.

Performance analysis (RQ1)

This section offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the state of research in the field of digital technology education. By utilizing descriptive statistics and visual maps, it provides a comprehensive overview of the development trends, authors, countries, institutions, and journal distribution within the field. The insights presented in this section are of great significance in advancing our understanding of the current state of research in this field and identifying areas for further investigation. The use of visual aids to display inter-country cooperation and the evolution of the field adds to the clarity and coherence of the analysis.

Time trend of the publications

To understand a research field, it is first necessary to understand the most basic quantitative information, among which the change in the number of publications per year best reflects the development trend of a research field. Figure 2 shows the distribution of publication dates.

Time trend of the publications on application of digital technology in education.

From the Fig. 2 , it can be seen that the development of this field over the past over 20 years can be roughly divided into three stages. The first stage was from 2000 to 2007, during which the number of publications was relatively low. Due to various factors such as technological maturity, the academic community did not pay widespread attention to the role of digital technology in expanding the scope of teaching and learning. The second stage was from 2008 to 2019, during which the overall number of publications showed an upward trend, and the development of the field entered an accelerated period, attracting more and more scholars’ attention. The third stage was from 2020 to 2022, during which the number of publications stabilized at around 100. During this period, the impact of the pandemic led to a large number of scholars focusing on the role of digital technology in education during the pandemic, and research on the application of digital technology in education became a core topic in social science research.

Analysis of authors

An analysis of the author’s publication volume provides information about the representative scholars and core research strengths of a research area. Table 3 presents information on the core authors in adaptive learning research, including name, publication number, and average number of citations per article (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer).

Variations in research foci among scholars abound. Within the field of digital technology education application research over the past two decades, Neil Selwyn stands as the most productive author, having published 15 papers garnering a total of 1027 citations, resulting in an average of 68.47 citations per paper. As a Professor at the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Selwyn concentrates on exploring the application of digital technology in higher education contexts (Selwyn et al. 2021 ), as well as related products in higher education such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity MOOC platforms (Bulfin et al. 2014 ). Selwyn’s contributions to the educational sociology perspective include extensive research on the impact of digital technology on education, highlighting the spatiotemporal extension of educational processes and practices through technological means as the greatest value of educational technology (Selwyn, 2012 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). In addition, he provides a blueprint for the development of future schools in 2030 based on the present impact of digital technology on education (Selwyn et al. 2019 ). The second most productive author in this field, Henderson, also offers significant contributions to the understanding of the important value of digital technology in education, specifically in the higher education setting, with a focus on the impact of the pandemic (Henderson et al. 2015 ; Cohen et al. 2022 ). In contrast, Edwards’ research interests focus on early childhood education, particularly the application of digital technology in this context (Edwards, 2013 ; Bird and Edwards, 2015 ). Additionally, on the technical level, Edwards also mainly prefers digital game technology, because it is a digital technology that children are relatively easy to accept (Edwards, 2015 ).

Analysis of countries/regions and organization

The present study aimed to ascertain the leading countries in digital technology education application research by analyzing 75 countries related to 558 works of literature. Table 4 depicts the top ten countries that have contributed significantly to this field in terms of publication count (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer). Our analysis of Table 4 data shows that England emerged as the most influential country/region, with 92 published papers and 2401 citations. Australia and the United States secured the second and third ranks, respectively, with 90 papers (2187 citations) and 70 papers (1331 citations) published. Geographically, most of the countries featured in the top ten publication volumes are situated in Australia, North America, and Europe, with China being the only exception. Notably, all these countries, except China, belong to the group of developed nations, suggesting that economic strength is a prerequisite for fostering research in the digital technology education application field.

This study presents a visual representation of the publication output and cooperation relationships among different countries in the field of digital technology education application research. Specifically, a chord diagram is employed to display the top 30 countries in terms of publication output, as depicted in Fig. 3 . The chord diagram is composed of nodes and chords, where the nodes are positioned as scattered points along the circumference, and the length of each node corresponds to the publication output, with longer lengths indicating higher publication output. The chords, on the other hand, represent the cooperation relationships between any two countries, and are weighted based on the degree of closeness of the cooperation, with wider chords indicating closer cooperation. Through the analysis of the cooperation relationships, the findings suggest that the main publishing countries in this field are engaged in cooperative relationships with each other, indicating a relatively high level of international academic exchange and research internationalization.

In the diagram, nodes are scattered along the circumference of a circle, with the length of each node representing the volume of publications. The weighted arcs connecting any two points on the circle are known as chords, representing the collaborative relationship between the two, with the width of the arc indicating the closeness of the collaboration.

Further analyzing Fig. 3 , we can extract more valuable information, enabling a deeper understanding of the connections between countries in the research field of digital technology in educational applications. It is evident that certain countries, such as the United States, China, and England, display thicker connections, indicating robust collaborative relationships in terms of productivity. These thicker lines signify substantial mutual contributions and shared objectives in certain sectors or fields, highlighting the interconnectedness and global integration in these areas. By delving deeper, we can also explore potential future collaboration opportunities through the chord diagram, identifying possible partners to propel research and development in this field. In essence, the chord diagram successfully encapsulates and conveys the multi-dimensionality of global productivity and cooperation, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the intricate inter-country relationships and networks in a global context, providing valuable guidance and insights for future research and collaborations.

An in-depth examination of the publishing institutions is provided in Table 5 , showcasing the foremost 10 institutions ranked by their publication volume. Notably, Monash University and Australian Catholic University, situated in Australia, have recorded the most prolific publications within the digital technology education application realm, with 22 and 10 publications respectively. Moreover, the University of Oslo from Norway is featured among the top 10 publishing institutions, with an impressive average citation count of 64 per publication. It is worth highlighting that six institutions based in the United Kingdom were also ranked within the top 10 publishing institutions, signifying their leading position in this area of research.

Analysis of journals

Journals are the main carriers for publishing high-quality papers. Some scholars point out that the two key factors to measure the influence of journals in the specified field are the number of articles published and the number of citations. The more papers published in a magazine and the more citations, the greater its influence (Dzikowski, 2018 ). Therefore, this study utilized VOSviewer to statistically analyze the top 10 journals with the most publications in the field of digital technology in education and calculated the average citations per article (see Table 6 ).

Based on Table 6 , it is apparent that the highest number of articles in the domain of digital technology in education research were published in Education and Information Technologies (47 articles), Computers & Education (34 articles), and British Journal of Educational Technology (32 articles), indicating a higher article output compared to other journals. This underscores the fact that these three journals concentrate more on the application of digital technology in education. Furthermore, several other journals, such as Technology Pedagogy and Education and Sustainability, have published more than 15 articles in this domain. Sustainability represents the open access movement, which has notably facilitated research progress in this field, indicating that the development of open access journals in recent years has had a significant impact. Although there is still considerable disagreement among scholars on the optimal approach to achieve open access, the notion that research outcomes should be accessible to all is widely recognized (Huang et al. 2020 ). On further analysis of the research fields to which these journals belong, except for Sustainability, it is evident that they all pertain to educational technology, thus providing a qualitative definition of the research area of digital technology education from the perspective of journals.

Temporal keyword analysis: thematic evolution (RQ2)

The evolution of research themes is a dynamic process, and previous studies have attempted to present the developmental trajectory of fields by drawing keyword networks in phases (Kumar et al. 2021 ; Chen et al. 2022b ). To understand the shifts in research topics across different periods, this study follows past research and, based on the significant changes in the research field and corresponding technological advancements during the outlined periods, divides the timeline into four stages (the first stage from January 2000 to December 2005, the second stage from January 2006 to December 2011, the third stage from January 2012 to December 2017; and the fourth stage from January 2018 to December 2022). The division into these four stages was determined through a combination of bibliometric analysis and literature review, which presented a clear trajectory of the field’s development. The research analyzes the keyword networks for each time period (as there are only three articles in the first stage, it was not possible to generate an appropriate keyword co-occurrence map, hence only the keyword co-occurrence maps from the second to the fourth stages are provided), to understand the evolutionary track of the digital technology education application research field over time.

2000.1–2005.12: germination period

From January 2000 to December 2005, digital technology education application research was in its infancy. Only three studies focused on digital technology, all of which were related to computers. Due to the popularity of computers, the home became a new learning environment, highlighting the important role of digital technology in expanding the scope of learning spaces (Sutherland et al. 2000 ). In specific disciplines and contexts, digital technology was first favored in medical clinical practice, becoming an important tool for supporting the learning of clinical knowledge and practice (Tegtmeyer et al. 2001 ; Durfee et al. 2003 ).

2006.1–2011.12: initial development period

Between January 2006 and December 2011, it was the initial development period of digital technology education research. Significant growth was observed in research related to digital technology, and discussions and theoretical analyses about “digital natives” emerged. During this phase, scholars focused on the debate about “how to use digital technology reasonably” and “whether current educational models and school curriculum design need to be adjusted on a large scale” (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ; Selwyn, 2009 ; Margaryan et al. 2011 ). These theoretical and speculative arguments provided a unique perspective on the impact of cognitive digital technology on education and teaching. As can be seen from the vocabulary such as “rethinking”, “disruptive pedagogy”, and “attitude” in Fig. 4 , many scholars joined the calm reflection and analysis under the trend of digital technology (Laurillard, 2008 ; Vratulis et al. 2011 ). During this phase, technology was still undergoing dramatic changes. The development of mobile technology had already caught the attention of many scholars (Wong et al. 2011 ), but digital technology represented by computers was still very active (Selwyn et al. 2011 ). The change in technological form would inevitably lead to educational transformation. Collins and Halverson ( 2010 ) summarized the prospects and challenges of using digital technology for learning and educational practices, believing that digital technology would bring a disruptive revolution to the education field and bring about a new educational system. In addition, the term “teacher education” in Fig. 4 reflects the impact of digital technology development on teachers. The rapid development of technology has widened the generation gap between teachers and students. To ensure smooth communication between teachers and students, teachers must keep up with the trend of technological development and establish a lifelong learning concept (Donnison, 2009 ).

In the diagram, each node represents a keyword, with the size of the node indicating the frequency of occurrence of the keyword. The connections represent the co-occurrence relationships between keywords, with a higher frequency of co-occurrence resulting in tighter connections.

2012.1–2017.12: critical exploration period

During the period spanning January 2012 to December 2017, the application of digital technology in education research underwent a significant exploration phase. As can be seen from Fig. 5 , different from the previous stage, the specific elements of specific digital technology have started to increase significantly, including the enrichment of technological contexts, the greater variety of research methods, and the diversification of learning modes. Moreover, the temporal and spatial dimensions of the learning environment were further de-emphasized, as noted in previous literature (Za et al. 2014 ). Given the rapidly accelerating pace of technological development, the education system in the digital era is in urgent need of collaborative evolution and reconstruction, as argued by Davis, Eickelmann, and Zaka ( 2013 ).

In the domain of digital technology, social media has garnered substantial scholarly attention as a promising avenue for learning, as noted by Pasquini and Evangelopoulos ( 2016 ). The implementation of social media in education presents several benefits, including the liberation of education from the restrictions of physical distance and time, as well as the erasure of conventional educational boundaries. The user-generated content (UGC) model in social media has emerged as a crucial source for knowledge creation and distribution, with the widespread adoption of mobile devices. Moreover, social networks have become an integral component of ubiquitous learning environments (Hwang et al. 2013 ). The utilization of social media allows individuals to function as both knowledge producers and recipients, which leads to a blurring of the conventional roles of learners and teachers. On mobile platforms, the roles of learners and teachers are not fixed, but instead interchangeable.

In terms of research methodology, the prevalence of empirical studies with survey designs in the field of educational technology during this period is evident from the vocabulary used, such as “achievement,” “acceptance,” “attitude,” and “ict.” in Fig. 5 . These studies aim to understand learners’ willingness to adopt and attitudes towards new technologies, and some seek to investigate the impact of digital technologies on learning outcomes through quasi-experimental designs (Domínguez et al. 2013 ). Among these empirical studies, mobile learning emerged as a hot topic, and this is not surprising. First, the advantages of mobile learning environments over traditional ones have been empirically demonstrated (Hwang et al. 2013 ). Second, learners born around the turn of the century have been heavily influenced by digital technologies and have developed their own learning styles that are more open to mobile devices as a means of learning. Consequently, analyzing mobile learning as a relatively novel mode of learning has become an important issue for scholars in the field of educational technology.

The intervention of technology has led to the emergence of several novel learning modes, with the blended learning model being the most representative one in the current phase. Blended learning, a novel concept introduced in the information age, emphasizes the integration of the benefits of traditional learning methods and online learning. This learning mode not only highlights the prominent role of teachers in guiding, inspiring, and monitoring the learning process but also underlines the importance of learners’ initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity in the learning process. Despite being an early conceptualization, blended learning’s meaning has been expanded by the widespread use of mobile technology and social media in education. The implementation of new technologies, particularly mobile devices, has resulted in the transformation of curriculum design and increased flexibility and autonomy in students’ learning processes (Trujillo Maza et al. 2016 ), rekindling scholarly attention to this learning mode. However, some scholars have raised concerns about the potential drawbacks of the blended learning model, such as its significant impact on the traditional teaching system, the lack of systematic coping strategies and relevant policies in several schools and regions (Moskal et al. 2013 ).

2018.1–2022.12: accelerated transformation period

The period spanning from January 2018 to December 2022 witnessed a rapid transformation in the application of digital technology in education research. The field of digital technology education research reached a peak period of publication, largely influenced by factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Yu et al. 2023 ). Research during this period was built upon the achievements, attitudes, and social media of the previous phase, and included more elements that reflect the characteristics of this research field, such as digital literacy, digital competence, and professional development, as depicted in Fig. 6 . Alongside this, scholars’ expectations for the value of digital technology have expanded, and the pursuit of improving learning efficiency and performance is no longer the sole focus. Some research now aims to cultivate learners’ motivation and enhance their self-efficacy by applying digital technology in a reasonable manner, as demonstrated by recent studies (Beardsley et al. 2021 ; Creely et al. 2021 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a crucial backdrop for the digital technology’s role in sustaining global education, as highlighted by recent scholarly research (Zhou et al. 2022 ; Pan and Zhang, 2020 ; Mo et al. 2022 ). The online learning environment, which is supported by digital technology, has become the primary battleground for global education (Yu, 2022 ). This social context has led to various studies being conducted, with some scholars positing that the pandemic has impacted the traditional teaching order while also expanding learning possibilities in terms of patterns and forms (Alabdulaziz, 2021 ). Furthermore, the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for teacher teaching and technological innovation, and this viewpoint has been empirically substantiated (Moorhouse and Wong, 2021 ). Additionally, some scholars believe that the pandemic’s push is a crucial driving force for the digital transformation of the education system, serving as an essential mechanism for overcoming the system’s inertia (Romero et al. 2021 ).

The rapid outbreak of the pandemic posed a challenge to the large-scale implementation of digital technologies, which was influenced by a complex interplay of subjective and objective factors. Objective constraints included the lack of infrastructure in some regions to support digital technologies, while subjective obstacles included psychological resistance among certain students and teachers (Moorhouse, 2021 ). These factors greatly impacted the progress of online learning during the pandemic. Additionally, Timotheou et al. ( 2023 ) conducted a comprehensive systematic review of existing research on digital technology use during the pandemic, highlighting the critical role played by various factors such as learners’ and teachers’ digital skills, teachers’ personal attributes and professional development, school leadership and management, and administration in facilitating the digitalization and transformation of schools.

The current stage of research is characterized by the pivotal term “digital literacy,” denoting a growing interest in learners’ attitudes and adoption of emerging technologies. Initially, the term “literacy” was restricted to fundamental abilities and knowledge associated with books and print materials (McMillan, 1996 ). However, with the swift advancement of computers and digital technology, there have been various attempts to broaden the scope of literacy beyond its traditional meaning, including game literacy (Buckingham and Burn, 2007 ), information literacy (Eisenberg, 2008 ), and media literacy (Turin and Friesem, 2020 ). Similarly, digital literacy has emerged as a crucial concept, and Gilster and Glister ( 1997 ) were the first to introduce this concept, referring to the proficiency in utilizing technology and processing digital information in academic, professional, and daily life settings. In practical educational settings, learners who possess higher digital literacy often exhibit an aptitude for quickly mastering digital devices and applying them intelligently to education and teaching (Yu, 2022 ).

The utilization of digital technology in education has undergone significant changes over the past two decades, and has been a crucial driver of educational reform with each new technological revolution. The impact of these changes on the underlying logic of digital technology education applications has been noticeable. From computer technology to more recent developments such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and artificial intelligence (AI), the acceleration in digital technology development has been ongoing. Educational reforms spurred by digital technology development continue to be dynamic, as each new digital innovation presents new possibilities and models for teaching practice. This is especially relevant in the post-pandemic era, where the importance of technological progress in supporting teaching cannot be overstated (Mughal et al. 2022 ). Existing digital technologies have already greatly expanded the dimensions of education in both time and space, while future digital technologies aim to expand learners’ perceptions. Researchers have highlighted the potential of integrated technology and immersive technology in the development of the educational metaverse, which is highly anticipated to create a new dimension for the teaching and learning environment, foster a new value system for the discipline of educational technology, and more effectively and efficiently achieve the grand educational blueprint of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (Zhang et al. 2022 ; Li and Yu, 2023 ).

Hotspot evolution analysis (RQ3)

The examination of keyword evolution reveals a consistent trend in the advancement of digital technology education application research. The emergence and transformation of keywords serve as indicators of the varying research interests in this field. Thus, the utilization of the burst detection function available in CiteSpace allowed for the identification of the top 10 burst words that exhibited a high level of burst strength. This outcome is illustrated in Table 7 .

According to the results presented in Table 7 , the explosive terminology within the realm of digital technology education research has exhibited a concentration mainly between the years 2018 and 2022. Prior to this time frame, the emerging keywords were limited to “information technology” and “computer”. Notably, among them, computer, as an emergent keyword, has always had a high explosive intensity from 2008 to 2018, which reflects the important position of computer in digital technology and is the main carrier of many digital technologies such as Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Assessment and Feedback systems (Barlovits et al. 2022 ).

Since 2018, an increasing number of research studies have focused on evaluating the capabilities of learners to accept, apply, and comprehend digital technologies. As indicated by the use of terms such as “digital literacy” and “digital skill,” the assessment of learners’ digital literacy has become a critical task. Scholarly efforts have been directed towards the development of literacy assessment tools and the implementation of empirical assessments. Furthermore, enhancing the digital literacy of both learners and educators has garnered significant attention. (Nagle, 2018 ; Yu, 2022 ). Simultaneously, given the widespread use of various digital technologies in different formal and informal learning settings, promoting learners’ digital skills has become a crucial objective for contemporary schools (Nygren et al. 2019 ; Forde and OBrien, 2022 ).

Since 2020, the field of applied research on digital technology education has witnessed the emergence of three new hotspots, all of which have been affected to some extent by the pandemic. Firstly, digital technology has been widely applied in physical education, which is one of the subjects that has been severely affected by the pandemic (Parris et al. 2022 ; Jiang and Ning, 2022 ). Secondly, digital transformation has become an important measure for most schools, especially higher education institutions, to cope with the impact of the pandemic globally (García-Morales et al. 2021 ). Although the concept of digital transformation was proposed earlier, the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated this transformation process. Educational institutions must carefully redesign their educational products to face this new situation, providing timely digital learning methods, environments, tools, and support systems that have far-reaching impacts on modern society (Krishnamurthy, 2020 ; Salas-Pilco et al. 2022 ). Moreover, the professional development of teachers has become a key mission of educational institutions in the post-pandemic era. Teachers need to have a certain level of digital literacy and be familiar with the tools and online teaching resources used in online teaching, which has become a research hotspot today. Organizing digital skills training for teachers to cope with the application of emerging technologies in education is an important issue for teacher professional development and lifelong learning (Garzón-Artacho et al. 2021 ). As the main organizers and practitioners of emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the pandemic, teachers must put cognitive effort into their professional development to ensure effective implementation of ERT (Romero-Hall and Jaramillo Cherrez, 2022 ).

The burst word “digital transformation” reveals that we are in the midst of an ongoing digital technology revolution. With the emergence of innovative digital technologies such as ChatGPT and Microsoft 365 Copilot, technology trends will continue to evolve, albeit unpredictably. While the impact of these advancements on school education remains uncertain, it is anticipated that the widespread integration of technology will significantly affect the current education system. Rejecting emerging technologies without careful consideration is unwise. Like any revolution, the technological revolution in the education field has both positive and negative aspects. Detractors argue that digital technology disrupts learning and memory (Baron, 2021 ) or causes learners to become addicted and distracted from learning (Selwyn and Aagaard, 2020 ). On the other hand, the prudent use of digital technology in education offers a glimpse of a golden age of open learning. Educational leaders and practitioners have the opportunity to leverage cutting-edge digital technologies to address current educational challenges and develop a rational path for the sustainable and healthy growth of education.

Discussion on performance analysis (RQ1)

The field of digital technology education application research has experienced substantial growth since the turn of the century, a phenomenon that is quantifiably apparent through an analysis of authorship, country/region contributions, and institutional engagement. This expansion reflects the increased integration of digital technologies in educational settings and the heightened scholarly interest in understanding and optimizing their use.

Discussion on authorship productivity in digital technology education research

The authorship distribution within digital technology education research is indicative of the field’s intellectual structure and depth. A primary figure in this domain is Neil Selwyn, whose substantial citation rate underscores the profound impact of his work. His focus on the implications of digital technology in higher education and educational sociology has proven to be seminal. Selwyn’s research trajectory, especially the exploration of spatiotemporal extensions of education through technology, provides valuable insights into the multifaceted role of digital tools in learning processes (Selwyn et al. 2019 ).

Other notable contributors, like Henderson and Edwards, present diversified research interests, such as the impact of digital technologies during the pandemic and their application in early childhood education, respectively. Their varied focuses highlight the breadth of digital technology education research, encompassing pedagogical innovation, technological adaptation, and policy development.

Discussion on country/region-level productivity and collaboration

At the country/region level, the United Kingdom, specifically England, emerges as a leading contributor with 92 published papers and a significant citation count. This is closely followed by Australia and the United States, indicating a strong English-speaking research axis. Such geographical concentration of scholarly output often correlates with investment in research and development, technological infrastructure, and the prevalence of higher education institutions engaging in cutting-edge research.

China’s notable inclusion as the only non-Western country among the top contributors to the field suggests a growing research capacity and interest in digital technology in education. However, the lower average citation per paper for China could reflect emerging engagement or different research focuses that may not yet have achieved the same international recognition as Western counterparts.

The chord diagram analysis furthers this understanding, revealing dense interconnections between countries like the United States, China, and England, which indicates robust collaborations. Such collaborations are fundamental in addressing global educational challenges and shaping international research agendas.

Discussion on institutional-level contributions to digital technology education

Institutional productivity in digital technology education research reveals a constellation of universities driving the field forward. Monash University and the Australian Catholic University have the highest publication output, signaling Australia’s significant role in advancing digital education research. The University of Oslo’s remarkable average citation count per publication indicates influential research contributions, potentially reflecting high-quality studies that resonate with the broader academic community.

The strong showing of UK institutions, including the University of London, The Open University, and the University of Cambridge, reinforces the UK’s prominence in this research field. Such institutions are often at the forefront of pedagogical innovation, benefiting from established research cultures and funding mechanisms that support sustained inquiry into digital education.

Discussion on journal publication analysis

An examination of journal outputs offers a lens into the communicative channels of the field’s knowledge base. Journals such as Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology not only serve as the primary disseminators of research findings but also as indicators of research quality and relevance. The impact factor (IF) serves as a proxy for the quality and influence of these journals within the academic community.

The high citation counts for articles published in Computers & Education suggest that research disseminated through this medium has a wide-reaching impact and is of particular interest to the field. This is further evidenced by its significant IF of 11.182, indicating that the journal is a pivotal platform for seminal work in the application of digital technology in education.

The authorship, regional, and institutional productivity in the field of digital technology education application research collectively narrate the evolution of this domain since the turn of the century. The prominence of certain authors and countries underscores the importance of socioeconomic factors and existing academic infrastructure in fostering research productivity. Meanwhile, the centrality of specific journals as outlets for high-impact research emphasizes the role of academic publishing in shaping the research landscape.

As the field continues to grow, future research may benefit from leveraging the collaborative networks that have been elucidated through this analysis, perhaps focusing on underrepresented regions to broaden the scope and diversity of research. Furthermore, the stabilization of publication numbers in recent years invites a deeper exploration into potential plateaus in research trends or saturation in certain sub-fields, signaling an opportunity for novel inquiries and methodological innovations.

Discussion on the evolutionary trends (RQ2)

The evolution of the research field concerning the application of digital technology in education over the past two decades is a story of convergence, diversification, and transformation, shaped by rapid technological advancements and shifting educational paradigms.

At the turn of the century, the inception of digital technology in education was largely exploratory, with a focus on how emerging computer technologies could be harnessed to enhance traditional learning environments. Research from this early period was primarily descriptive, reflecting on the potential and challenges of incorporating digital tools into the educational setting. This phase was critical in establishing the fundamental discourse that would guide subsequent research, as it set the stage for understanding the scope and impact of digital technology in learning spaces (Wang et al. 2023 ).

As the first decade progressed, the narrative expanded to encompass the pedagogical implications of digital technologies. This was a period of conceptual debates, where terms like “digital natives” and “disruptive pedagogy” entered the academic lexicon, underscoring the growing acknowledgment of digital technology as a transformative force within education (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ). During this time, the research began to reflect a more nuanced understanding of the integration of technology, considering not only its potential to change where and how learning occurred but also its implications for educational equity and access.

In the second decade, with the maturation of internet connectivity and mobile technology, the focus of research shifted from theoretical speculations to empirical investigations. The proliferation of digital devices and the ubiquity of social media influenced how learners interacted with information and each other, prompting a surge in studies that sought to measure the impact of these tools on learning outcomes. The digital divide and issues related to digital literacy became central concerns, as scholars explored the varying capacities of students and educators to engage with technology effectively.

Throughout this period, there was an increasing emphasis on the individualization of learning experiences, facilitated by adaptive technologies that could cater to the unique needs and pacing of learners (Jing et al. 2023a ). This individualization was coupled with a growing recognition of the importance of collaborative learning, both online and offline, and the role of digital tools in supporting these processes. Blended learning models, which combined face-to-face instruction with online resources, emerged as a significant trend, advocating for a balance between traditional pedagogies and innovative digital strategies.

The later years, particularly marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerated the necessity for digital technology in education, transforming it from a supplementary tool to an essential platform for delivering education globally (Mo et al. 2022 ; Mustapha et al. 2021 ). This era brought about an unprecedented focus on online learning environments, distance education, and virtual classrooms. Research became more granular, examining not just the pedagogical effectiveness of digital tools, but also their role in maintaining continuity of education during crises, their impact on teacher and student well-being, and their implications for the future of educational policy and infrastructure.

Across these two decades, the research field has seen a shift from examining digital technology as an external addition to the educational process, to viewing it as an integral component of curriculum design, instructional strategies, and even assessment methods. The emergent themes have broadened from a narrow focus on specific tools or platforms to include wider considerations such as data privacy, ethical use of technology, and the environmental impact of digital tools.

Moreover, the field has moved from considering the application of digital technology in education as a primarily cognitive endeavor to recognizing its role in facilitating socio-emotional learning, digital citizenship, and global competencies. Researchers have increasingly turned their attention to the ways in which technology can support collaborative skills, cultural understanding, and ethical reasoning within diverse student populations.

In summary, the past over twenty years in the research field of digital technology applications in education have been characterized by a progression from foundational inquiries to complex analyses of digital integration. This evolution has mirrored the trajectory of technology itself, from a facilitative tool to a pervasive ecosystem defining contemporary educational experiences. As we look to the future, the field is poised to delve into the implications of emerging technologies like AI, AR, and VR, and their potential to redefine the educational landscape even further. This ongoing metamorphosis suggests that the application of digital technology in education will continue to be a rich area of inquiry, demanding continual adaptation and forward-thinking from educators and researchers alike.

Discussion on the study of research hotspots (RQ3)

The analysis of keyword evolution in digital technology education application research elucidates the current frontiers in the field, reflecting a trajectory that is in tandem with the rapidly advancing digital age. This landscape is sculpted by emergent technological innovations and shaped by the demands of an increasingly digital society.

Interdisciplinary integration and pedagogical transformation

One of the frontiers identified from recent keyword bursts includes the integration of digital technology into diverse educational contexts, particularly noted with the keyword “physical education.” The digitalization of disciplines traditionally characterized by physical presence illustrates the pervasive reach of technology and signifies a push towards interdisciplinary integration where technology is not only a facilitator but also a transformative agent. This integration challenges educators to reconceptualize curriculum delivery to accommodate digital tools that can enhance or simulate the physical aspects of learning.

Digital literacy and skills acquisition

Another pivotal frontier is the focus on “digital literacy” and “digital skill”, which has intensified in recent years. This suggests a shift from mere access to technology towards a comprehensive understanding and utilization of digital tools. In this realm, the emphasis is not only on the ability to use technology but also on critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ethical use of digital resources (Yu, 2022 ). The acquisition of digital literacy is no longer an additive skill but a fundamental aspect of modern education, essential for navigating and contributing to the digital world.

Educational digital transformation

The keyword “digital transformation” marks a significant research frontier, emphasizing the systemic changes that education institutions must undergo to align with the digital era (Romero et al. 2021 ). This transformation includes the redesigning of learning environments, pedagogical strategies, and assessment methods to harness digital technology’s full potential. Research in this area explores the complexity of institutional change, addressing the infrastructural, cultural, and policy adjustments needed for a seamless digital transition.

Engagement and participation

Further exploration into “engagement” and “participation” underscores the importance of student-centered learning environments that are mediated by technology. The current frontiers examine how digital platforms can foster collaboration, inclusivity, and active learning, potentially leading to more meaningful and personalized educational experiences. Here, the use of technology seeks to support the emotional and cognitive aspects of learning, moving beyond the transactional view of education to one that is relational and interactive.

Professional development and teacher readiness

As the field evolves, “professional development” emerges as a crucial area, particularly in light of the pandemic which necessitated emergency remote teaching. The need for teacher readiness in a digital age is a pressing frontier, with research focusing on the competencies required for educators to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices. This includes familiarity with digital tools, pedagogical innovation, and an ongoing commitment to personal and professional growth in the digital domain.

Pandemic as a catalyst

The recent pandemic has acted as a catalyst for accelerated research and application in this field, particularly in the domains of “digital transformation,” “professional development,” and “physical education.” This period has been a litmus test for the resilience and adaptability of educational systems to continue their operations in an emergency. Research has thus been directed at understanding how digital technologies can support not only continuity but also enhance the quality and reach of education in such contexts.

Ethical and societal considerations

The frontier of digital technology in education is also expanding to consider broader ethical and societal implications. This includes issues of digital equity, data privacy, and the sociocultural impact of technology on learning communities. The research explores how educational technology can be leveraged to address inequities and create more equitable learning opportunities for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

Innovation and emerging technologies

Looking forward, the frontiers are set to be influenced by ongoing and future technological innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI) (Wu and Yu, 2023 ; Chen et al. 2022a ). The exploration into how these technologies can be integrated into educational practices to create immersive and adaptive learning experiences represents a bold new chapter for the field.

In conclusion, the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education are multifaceted and dynamic. They reflect an overarching movement towards deeper integration of technology in educational systems and pedagogical practices, where the goals are not only to facilitate learning but to redefine it. As these frontiers continue to expand and evolve, they will shape the educational landscape, requiring a concerted effort from researchers, educators, policymakers, and technologists to navigate the challenges and harness the opportunities presented by the digital revolution in education.

Conclusions and future research

Conclusions.

The utilization of digital technology in education is a research area that cuts across multiple technical and educational domains and continues to experience dynamic growth due to the continuous progress of technology. In this study, a systematic review of this field was conducted through bibliometric techniques to examine its development trajectory. The primary focus of the review was to investigate the leading contributors, productive national institutions, significant publications, and evolving development patterns. The study’s quantitative analysis resulted in several key conclusions that shed light on this research field’s current state and future prospects.

(1) The research field of digital technology education applications has entered a stage of rapid development, particularly in recent years due to the impact of the pandemic, resulting in a peak of publications. Within this field, several key authors (Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards, etc.) and countries/regions (England, Australia, USA, etc.) have emerged, who have made significant contributions. International exchanges in this field have become frequent, with a high degree of internationalization in academic research. Higher education institutions in the UK and Australia are the core productive forces in this field at the institutional level.

(2) Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology are notable journals that publish research related to digital technology education applications. These journals are affiliated with the research field of educational technology and provide effective communication platforms for sharing digital technology education applications.

(3) Over the past two decades, research on digital technology education applications has progressed from its early stages of budding, initial development, and critical exploration to accelerated transformation, and it is currently approaching maturity. Technological progress and changes in the times have been key driving forces for educational transformation and innovation, and both have played important roles in promoting the continuous development of education.

(4) Influenced by the pandemic, three emerging frontiers have emerged in current research on digital technology education applications, which are physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. These frontier research hotspots reflect the core issues that the education system faces when encountering new technologies. The evolution of research hotspots shows that technology breakthroughs in education’s original boundaries of time and space create new challenges. The continuous self-renewal of education is achieved by solving one hotspot problem after another.

The present study offers significant practical implications for scholars and practitioners in the field of digital technology education applications. Firstly, it presents a well-defined framework of the existing research in this area, serving as a comprehensive guide for new entrants to the field and shedding light on the developmental trajectory of this research domain. Secondly, the study identifies several contemporary research hotspots, thus offering a valuable decision-making resource for scholars aiming to explore potential research directions. Thirdly, the study undertakes an exhaustive analysis of published literature to identify core journals in the field of digital technology education applications, with Sustainability being identified as a promising open access journal that publishes extensively on this topic. This finding can potentially facilitate scholars in selecting appropriate journals for their research outputs.

Limitation and future research

Influenced by some objective factors, this study also has some limitations. First of all, the bibliometrics analysis software has high standards for data. In order to ensure the quality and integrity of the collected data, the research only selects the periodical papers in SCIE and SSCI indexes, which are the core collection of Web of Science database, and excludes other databases, conference papers, editorials and other publications, which may ignore some scientific research and original opinions in the field of digital technology education and application research. In addition, although this study used professional software to carry out bibliometric analysis and obtained more objective quantitative data, the analysis and interpretation of data will inevitably have a certain subjective color, and the influence of subjectivity on data analysis cannot be completely avoided. As such, future research endeavors will broaden the scope of literature screening and proactively engage scholars in the field to gain objective and state-of-the-art insights, while minimizing the adverse impact of personal subjectivity on research analysis.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/F9QMHY

Alabdulaziz MS (2021) COVID-19 and the use of digital technology in mathematics education. Educ Inf Technol 26(6):7609–7633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10602-3

Arif TB, Munaf U, Ul-Haque I (2023) The future of medical education and research: is ChatGPT a blessing or blight in disguise? Med Educ Online 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2181052

Banerjee M, Chiew D, Patel KT, Johns I, Chappell D, Linton N, Cole GD, Francis DP, Szram J, Ross J, Zaman S (2021) The impact of artificial intelligence on clinical education: perceptions of postgraduate trainee doctors in London (UK) and recommendations for trainers. BMC Med Educ 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02870-x

Barlovits S, Caldeira A, Fesakis G, Jablonski S, Koutsomanoli Filippaki D, Lázaro C, Ludwig M, Mammana MF, Moura A, Oehler DXK, Recio T, Taranto E, Volika S(2022) Adaptive, synchronous, and mobile online education: developing the ASYMPTOTE learning environment. Mathematics 10:1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10101628

Article   Google Scholar  

Baron NS(2021) Know what? How digital technologies undermine learning and remembering J Pragmat 175:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.011

Batista J, Morais NS, Ramos F (2016) Researching the use of communication technologies in higher education institutions in Portugal. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0571-6.ch057

Beardsley M, Albó L, Aragón P, Hernández-Leo D (2021) Emergency education effects on teacher abilities and motivation to use digital technologies. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13101

Bennett S, Maton K(2010) Beyond the “digital natives” debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences J Comput Assist Learn 26:321–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Buckingham D, Burn A (2007) Game literacy in theory and practice 16:323–349

Google Scholar  

Bulfin S, Pangrazio L, Selwyn N (2014) Making “MOOCs”: the construction of a new digital higher education within news media discourse. In: The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1856

Camilleri MA, Camilleri AC(2016) Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education Technol Knowl Learn 22:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9287-7

Chen C(2006) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57:359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Chen J, Dai J, Zhu K, Xu L(2022) Effects of extended reality on language learning: a meta-analysis Front Psychol 13:1016519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016519

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chen J, Wang CL, Tang Y (2022b) Knowledge mapping of volunteer motivation: a bibliometric analysis and cross-cultural comparative study. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883150

Cohen A, Soffer T, Henderson M(2022) Students’ use of technology and their perceptions of its usefulness in higher education: International comparison J Comput Assist Learn 38(5):1321–1331. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12678

Collins A, Halverson R(2010) The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology J Comput Assist Learn 26:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x

Conole G, Alevizou P (2010) A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK: the Open University, retrieved 17 February

Creely E, Henriksen D, Crawford R, Henderson M(2021) Exploring creative risk-taking and productive failure in classroom practice. A case study of the perceived self-efficacy and agency of teachers at one school Think Ski Creat 42:100951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100951

Davis N, Eickelmann B, Zaka P(2013) Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective J Comput Assist Learn 29:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

De Belli N (2009) Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics, Scarecrow Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

Domínguez A, Saenz-de-Navarrete J, de-Marcos L, Fernández-Sanz L, Pagés C, Martínez-Herráiz JJ(2013) Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes Comput Educ 63:380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Donnison S (2009) Discourses in conflict: the relationship between Gen Y pre-service teachers, digital technologies and lifelong learning. Australasian J Educ Technol 25. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1138

Durfee SM, Jain S, Shaffer K (2003) Incorporating electronic media into medical student education. Acad Radiol 10:205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80046-6

Dzikowski P(2018) A bibliometric analysis of born global firms J Bus Res 85:281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054

van Eck NJ, Waltman L(2009) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping Scientometrics 84:523–538 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Edwards S(2013) Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum Eur Early Child Educ Res J 21:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2013.789190

Edwards S(2015) New concepts of play and the problem of technology, digital media and popular-culture integration with play-based learning in early childhood education Technol Pedagogy Educ 25:513–532 https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2015.1108929

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Eisenberg MB(2008) Information literacy: essential skills for the information age DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol 28:39–47. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.28.2.166

Forde C, OBrien A (2022) A literature review of barriers and opportunities presented by digitally enhanced practical skill teaching and learning in health science education. Med Educ Online 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2068210

García-Morales VJ, Garrido-Moreno A, Martín-Rojas R (2021) The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: emerging challenges in an online learning scenario. Front Psychol 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616059

Garfield E(2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA 295:90. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Garzón-Artacho E, Sola-Martínez T, Romero-Rodríguez JM, Gómez-García G(2021) Teachers’ perceptions of digital competence at the lifelong learning stage Heliyon 7:e07513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07513

Gaviria-Marin M, Merigó JM, Baier-Fuentes H(2019) Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis Technol Forecast Soc Change 140:194–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.006

Gilster P, Glister P (1997) Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub, New York

Greenhow C, Lewin C(2015) Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning Learn Media Technol 41:6–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954

Hawkins DT(2001) Bibliometrics of electronic journals in information science Infor Res 7(1):7–1. http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper120.html

Henderson M, Selwyn N, Finger G, Aston R(2015) Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and “usefulness J High Educ Policy Manag 37:308–319 https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2015.1034424

Huang CK, Neylon C, Hosking R, Montgomery L, Wilson KS, Ozaygen A, Brookes-Kenworthy C (2020) Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions. eLife 9. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.57067

Hwang GJ, Tsai CC(2011) Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010 Br J Educ Technol 42:E65–E70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x

Hwang GJ, Wu PH, Zhuang YY, Huang YM(2013) Effects of the inquiry-based mobile learning model on the cognitive load and learning achievement of students Interact Learn Environ 21:338–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.575789

Jiang S, Ning CF (2022) Interactive communication in the process of physical education: are social media contributing to the improvement of physical training performance. Universal Access Inf Soc, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00911-w

Jing Y, Zhao L, Zhu KK, Wang H, Wang CL, Xia Q(2023) Research landscape of adaptive learning in education: a bibliometric study on research publications from 2000 to 2022 Sustainability 15:3115–3115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043115

Jing Y, Wang CL, Chen Y, Wang H, Yu T, Shadiev R (2023b) Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: a systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6

Krishnamurthy S (2020) The future of business education: a commentary in the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic. J Bus Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.034

Kumar S, Lim WM, Pandey N, Christopher Westland J (2021) 20 years of electronic commerce research. Electron Commer Res 21:1–40

Kyza EA, Georgiou Y(2018) Scaffolding augmented reality inquiry learning: the design and investigation of the TraceReaders location-based, augmented reality platform Interact Learn Environ 27:211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1458039

Laurillard D(2008) Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation J Philos Educ 42:521–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00658.x

Li M, Yu Z (2023) A systematic review on the metaverse-based blended English learning. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1087508

Luo H, Li G, Feng Q, Yang Y, Zuo M (2021) Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: a systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2019. J Comput Assist Learn. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12538

Margaryan A, Littlejohn A, Vojt G(2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies Comput Educ 56:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004

McMillan S(1996) Literacy and computer literacy: definitions and comparisons Comput Educ 27:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(96)00026-7

Mo CY, Wang CL, Dai J, Jin P (2022) Video playback speed influence on learning effect from the perspective of personalized adaptive learning: a study based on cognitive load theory. Front Psychology 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.839982

Moorhouse BL (2021) Beginning teaching during COVID-19: newly qualified Hong Kong teachers’ preparedness for online teaching. Educ Stud 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1964939

Moorhouse BL, Wong KM (2021) The COVID-19 Pandemic as a catalyst for teacher pedagogical and technological innovation and development: teachers’ perspectives. Asia Pac J Educ 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1988511

Moskal P, Dziuban C, Hartman J (2013) Blended learning: a dangerous idea? Internet High Educ 18:15–23

Mughal MY, Andleeb N, Khurram AFA, Ali MY, Aslam MS, Saleem MN (2022) Perceptions of teaching-learning force about Metaverse for education: a qualitative study. J. Positive School Psychol 6:1738–1745

Mustapha I, Thuy Van N, Shahverdi M, Qureshi MI, Khan N (2021) Effectiveness of digital technology in education during COVID-19 pandemic. a bibliometric analysis. Int J Interact Mob Technol 15:136

Nagle J (2018) Twitter, cyber-violence, and the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: a review of the literature. Teach Teach Education 76:86–94

Nazare J, Woolf A, Sysoev I, Ballinger S, Saveski M, Walker M, Roy D (2022) Technology-assisted coaching can increase engagement with learning technology at home and caregivers’ awareness of it. Comput Educ 188:104565

Nguyen UP, Hallinger P (2020) Assessing the distinctive contributions of simulation & gaming to the literature, 1970-2019: a bibliometric review. Simul Gaming 104687812094156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120941569

Nygren H, Nissinen K, Hämäläinen R, Wever B(2019) Lifelong learning: formal, non-formal and informal learning in the context of the use of problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments Br J Educ Technol 50:1759–1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12807

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88:105906

Pan SL, Zhang S(2020) From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling sustainable development goals: an opportunity for responsible information systems research Int J Inf Manage 55:102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102196

Pan X, Yan E, Cui M, Hua W(2018) Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: a comparative study of three tools J Informetr 12:481–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.005

Parris Z, Cale L, Harris J, Casey A (2022) Physical activity for health, covid-19 and social media: what, where and why?. Movimento, 28. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.122533

Pasquini LA, Evangelopoulos N (2016) Sociotechnical stewardship in higher education: a field study of social media policy documents. J Comput High Educ 29:218–239

Pérez-Sanagustín M, Hernández-Leo D, Santos P, Delgado Kloos C, Blat J(2014) Augmenting reality and formality of informal and non-formal settings to enhance blended learning IEEE Trans Learn Technol 7:118–131. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2312719

Pinto M, Leite C (2020) Digital technologies in support of students learning in Higher Education: literature review. Digital Education Review 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.343-360

Pires F, Masanet MJ, Tomasena JM, Scolari CA(2022) Learning with YouTube: beyond formal and informal through new actors, strategies and affordances Convergence 28(3):838–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521102054

Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics 25:348

Romero M, Romeu T, Guitert M, Baztán P (2021) Digital transformation in higher education: the UOC case. In ICERI2021 Proceedings (pp. 6695–6703). IATED https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.1512

Romero-Hall E, Jaramillo Cherrez N (2022) Teaching in times of disruption: faculty digital literacy in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2030782

Rospigliosi PA(2023) Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: what questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interactive Learning Environments 31:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191

Salas-Pilco SZ, Yang Y, Zhang Z(2022) Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Br J Educ Technol 53(3):593–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190

Selwyn N(2009) The digital native-myth and reality In Aslib proceedings 61(4):364–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776

Selwyn N(2012) Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: the role of sociological theory Oxford Review of Education 38:81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577949

Selwyn N, Facer K(2014) The sociology of education and digital technology: past, present and future Oxford Rev Educ 40:482–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.933005

Selwyn N, Banaji S, Hadjithoma-Garstka C, Clark W(2011) Providing a platform for parents? Exploring the nature of parental engagement with school Learning Platforms J Comput Assist Learn 27:314–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00428.x

Selwyn N, Aagaard J (2020) Banning mobile phones from classrooms-an opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943

Selwyn N, O’Neill C, Smith G, Andrejevic M, Gu X (2021) A necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media Int Austr 1329878X2110058. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x211005862

Selwyn N, Pangrazio L, Nemorin S, Perrotta C (2019) What might the school of 2030 be like? An exercise in social science fiction. Learn, Media Technol 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694944

Selwyn, N (2016) What works and why?* Understanding successful technology enabled learning within institutional contexts 2016 Final report Appendices (Part B). Monash University Griffith University

Sjöberg D, Holmgren R (2021) Informal workplace learning in swedish police education-a teacher perspective. Vocations and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-021-09267-3

Strotmann A, Zhao D (2012) Author name disambiguation: what difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 63:1820–1833

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sutherland R, Facer K, Furlong R, Furlong J(2000) A new environment for education? The computer in the home. Comput Educ 34:195–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00045-7

Szeto E, Cheng AY-N, Hong J-C(2015) Learning with social media: how do preservice teachers integrate YouTube and Social Media in teaching? Asia-Pac Educ Res 25:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0230-9

Tang E, Lam C(2014) Building an effective online learning community (OLC) in blog-based teaching portfolios Int High Educ 20:79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.002

Taskin Z, Al U(2019) Natural language processing applications in library and information science Online Inf Rev 43:676–690. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-07-2018-0217

Tegtmeyer K, Ibsen L, Goldstein B(2001) Computer-assisted learning in critical care: from ENIAC to HAL Crit Care Med 29:N177–N182. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200108001-00006

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Timotheou S, Miliou O, Dimitriadis Y, Sobrino SV, Giannoutsou N, Cachia R, Moné AM, Ioannou A(2023) Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: a literature review. Educ Inf Technol 28(6):6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

Trujillo Maza EM, Gómez Lozano MT, Cardozo Alarcón AC, Moreno Zuluaga L, Gamba Fadul M (2016) Blended learning supported by digital technology and competency-based medical education: a case study of the social medicine course at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0027-9

Turin O, Friesem Y(2020) Is that media literacy?: Israeli and US media scholars’ perceptions of the field J Media Lit Educ 12:132–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2019) VOSviewer manual. Universiteit Leiden

Vratulis V, Clarke T, Hoban G, Erickson G(2011) Additive and disruptive pedagogies: the use of slowmation as an example of digital technology implementation Teach Teach Educ 27:1179–1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.004

Wang CL, Dai J, Xu LJ (2022) Big data and data mining in education: a bibliometrics study from 2010 to 2022. In 2022 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics ( ICCCBDA ) (pp. 507-512). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icccbda55098.2022.9778874

Wang CL, Dai J, Zhu KK, Yu T, Gu XQ (2023) Understanding the continuance intention of college students toward new E-learning spaces based on an integrated model of the TAM and TTF. Int J Hum-Comput Int 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2291609

Wong L-H, Boticki I, Sun J, Looi C-K(2011) Improving the scaffolds of a mobile-assisted Chinese character forming game via a design-based research cycle Comput Hum Behav 27:1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.005

Wu R, Yu Z (2023) Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Br J Educ Technol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13334

Yang D, Zhou J, Shi D, Pan Q, Wang D, Chen X, Liu J (2022) Research status, hotspots, and evolutionary trends of global digital education via knowledge graph analysis. Sustainability 14:15157–15157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu T, Dai J, Wang CL (2023) Adoption of blended learning: Chinese university students’ perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:390. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu Z (2022) Sustaining student roles, digital literacy, learning achievements, and motivation in online learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 14:4388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084388

Za S, Spagnoletti P, North-Samardzic A(2014) Organisational learning as an emerging process: the generative role of digital tools in informal learning practices Br J Educ Technol 45:1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12211

Zhang X, Chen Y, Hu L, Wang Y (2022) The metaverse in education: definition, framework, features, potential applications, challenges, and future research topics. Front Psychol 13:1016300. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016300

Zhou M, Dzingirai C, Hove K, Chitata T, Mugandani R (2022) Adoption, use and enhancement of virtual learning during COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10985-x

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Social Science Planning Project, “Mechanisms and Pathways for Empowering Classroom Teaching through Learning Spaces under the Strategy of High-Quality Education Development”, the 2022 National Social Science Foundation Education Youth Project “Research on the Strategy of Creating Learning Space Value and Empowering Classroom Teaching under the background of ‘Double Reduction’” (Grant No. CCA220319) and the National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program of China (Grant No. 202310337023).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Zhejiang, China

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, Yidan Liu & Yuhui Jing

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia

Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beihang University, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Y.J., C.W.; methodology, C.W.; software, C.W., Y.L.; writing-original draft preparation, C.W., Y.L.; writing-review and editing, T.Y., Y.L., C.W.; supervision, X.C., T.Y.; project administration, Y.J.; funding acquisition, X.C., Y.L. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and approved the re-submission of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuhui Jing .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, C., Chen, X., Yu, T. et al. Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 256 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 17 January 2024

Published : 12 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

‘To the Future’: Saudi Arabia Spends Big to Become an A.I. Superpower

The oil-rich kingdom is plowing money into glitzy events, computing power and artificial intelligence research, putting it in the middle of an escalating U.S.-China struggle for technological influence.

More than 200,000 people converged on the Leap tech conference in the desert outside Riyadh in March. Credit... Iman Al-Dabbagh for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Adam Satariano and Paul Mozur

Adam Satariano reported from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Paul Mozur from Taipei, Taiwan.

• Published April 25, 2024 Updated April 26, 2024

On a Monday morning last month, tech executives, engineers and sales representatives from Amazon, Google, TikTok and other companies endured a three-hour traffic jam as their cars crawled toward a mammoth conference at an event space in the desert, 50 miles outside Riyadh.

The lure: billions of dollars in Saudi money as the kingdom seeks to build a tech industry to complement its oil dominance.

To bypass the congestion, frustrated eventgoers drove onto the highway shoulder, kicking up plumes of desert sand as they sped past those following traffic rules. A lucky few took advantage of a special freeway exit dedicated to “V.V.I.P.s” — very, very important people.

“To the Future,” a sign read on the approach to the event, called Leap.

More than 200,000 people converged at the conference, including Adam Selipsky, chief executive of Amazon’s cloud computing division, who announced a $5.3 billion investment in Saudi Arabia for data centers and artificial intelligence technology. Arvind Krishna, the chief executive of IBM, spoke of what a government minister called a “lifetime friendship” with the kingdom. Executives from Huawei and dozens of other firms made speeches. More than $10 billion in deals were done there, according to Saudi Arabia’s state press agency.

“This is a great country,” Shou Chew, TikTok’s chief executive, said during the conference, heralding the video app’s growth in the kingdom. “We expect to invest even more.”

• Shou Chew, TikTok’s chief executive, promoted the video app’s growth in Saudi Arabia during the Leap conference. Iman Al-Dabbagh for The New York Times
• One of the booths at the Leap conference, which was attended by executives from Google, Amazon, TikTok and others. Iman Al-Dabbagh for The New York Times
• A robotic dog walking through the Leap conference. Iman Al-Dabbagh for The New York Times

Everybody in tech seems to want to make friends with Saudi Arabia right now as the kingdom has trained its sights on becoming a dominant player in A.I. — and is pumping in eye-popping sums to do so.

Saudi Arabia created a $100 billion fund this year to invest in A.I. and other technology. It is in talks with Andreessen Horowitz, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, and other investors to put an additional $40 billion into A.I. companies. In March, the government said it would invest $1 billion in a Silicon Valley-inspired start-up accelerator to lure A.I. entrepreneurs to the kingdom. The initiatives easily dwarf those of most major nation-state investments, like Britain’s $100 million pledge for the Alan Turing Institute.

The spending blitz stems from a generational effort outlined in 2016 by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and known as “Vision 2030.” Saudi Arabia is racing to diversify its oil-rich economy in areas like tech, tourism, culture and sports — investing a reported $200 million a year for the soccer superstar Cristiano Ronaldo and planning a 100-mile-long mirrored skyscraper in the desert.

For the tech industry, Saudi Arabia has long been a funding spigot. But the kingdom is now redirecting its oil wealth into building a domestic tech industry, requiring international firms to establish roots there if they want its money.

If Prince Mohammed succeeds, he will place Saudi Arabia in the middle of an escalating global competition among China, the United States and other countries like France that have made breakthroughs in generative A.I. Combined with A.I. efforts by its neighbor, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia’s plan has the potential to create a new power center in the global tech industry.

“I hereby invite all dreamers, innovators, investors and thinkers to join us, here in the kingdom, to achieve our ambitions together,” Prince Mohammed remarked in a 2020 speech about A.I.

His ambitions are geopolitically delicate as China and the United States seek to carve out spheres of influence over A.I. to shape the future of critical technologies.

In Washington, many worry that the kingdom’s goals and authoritarian leanings could work against U.S. interests — for instance, if Saudi Arabia ends up providing computing power to Chinese researchers and companies. This month, the White House brokered a deal for Microsoft to invest in G42, an A.I. company in the Emirates, which was intended partly to diminish China’s influence.

For China, the Persian Gulf region offers a big market, access to deep-pocketed investors and a chance to wield influence in countries traditionally allied with the United States. China’s form of A.I.-powered surveillance has already been embedded into policing in the region .

Some industry leaders have begun to arrive. Jürgen Schmidhuber, an A.I. pioneer who now heads an A.I. program at Saudi Arabia’s premier research university, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, recalled the kingdom’s roots centuries ago as a center for science and mathematics.

“It would be lovely to contribute to a new world and resurrect this golden age,” he said. “Yes, it will cost money, but there’s a lot of money in this country.”

The willingness to spend was front and center last month at a gala in Riyadh hosted by the Saudi government, which coincided with the Leap conference. Hollywood klieg lights blazed in the sky above the city as guests arrived in chauffeured Maseratis, Mercedes-Benzes and Porsches. Inside a 300,000-square-foot parking garage that had been converted two years ago into one of the world’s largest start-up spaces, attendees mingled, debated opening offices in Riyadh and sipped pomegranate juice and cardamom-flavored coffee.

“There’s something happening here,” said Hilmar Veigar Petursson, the chief executive of CCP Games, the Icelandic company behind the popular game Eve Online, who was at the gala. “I got a very similar sense when I came back from China in 2005.”

A Sci-Fi Script

Prince Mohammed’s Vision 2030 project, unveiled eight years ago, seems taken from a science-fiction script.

Under the plan, new futuristic cities will be built in the desert along the Red Sea, oriented around tech and digital services. And the kingdom, which has piled billions into tech start-ups like Uber and investment vehicles such as SoftBank’s Vision Fund, would spend more.

That drew Silicon Valley’s attention. When Prince Mohammed visited California in 2018, Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, escorted him through a tree-lined path at the company’s campus. Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, showed him the company’s products. The prince also traveled to Seattle, where he met with Bill Gates of Microsoft; Satya Nadella, the company’s chief executive; and Jeff Bezos of Amazon.

It was a key moment for Saudi Arabia’s tech ambitions as Prince Mohammed presented himself as a youthful, digitally savvy reformer. But enthusiasm dimmed a few months later when Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and critic of the crown prince, was killed at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Prince Mohammed denied involvement, but the C.I.A. concluded that he had approved the killing .

For a brief period, it was seen as untoward to associate with Saudi Arabia. Business executives canceled visits to the kingdom. But the lure of its money was ultimately too strong.

A.I. development depends on two key things that Saudi Arabia has in abundance: money and energy. The kingdom is pouring oil profits into buying semiconductors, building supercomputers, attracting talent and constructing data centers powered by its plentiful electricity. The bet is that Saudi Arabia will eventually export A.I. computing muscle.

Majid Ali AlShehry, the general manager of studies for the Saudi Data and A.I. Authority, a government agency overseeing A.I. initiatives, said 70 percent of the 96 strategic goals outlined in Vision 2030 involved using data and A.I.

“We see A.I. as one of the main enablers of all sectors,” he said in an interview at the agency’s office in Riyadh, where employees nearby worked on an Arabic chatbot called Allam.

Those goals have permeated the kingdom. Posters for Vision 2030 are visible throughout Riyadh. Young Saudis describe the crown prince as running the kingdom as if it were a start-up. Many tech leaders have parroted the sentiment.

“Saudi has a founder,” Ben Horowitz, a founder of Andreessen Horowitz, said last year at a conference in Miami. “You don’t call him a founder. You call him his royal highness.”

Some question whether Saudi Arabia can become a global tech hub. The kingdom has faced scrutiny for its human rights record, intolerance to homosexuality and brutal heat. But for those in the tech world who descended on Riyadh last month, the concerns seemed secondary to the dizzying amount of deal-making underway.

“They are just pouring money into A.I.,” said Peter Lillian, an engineer at Groq, a U.S. maker of semiconductors that power A.I. systems. Groq is working with Neom, a futuristic city that Saudi Arabia is building in the desert, and Aramco, the state oil giant. “We’re doing so many deals,” he said.

Torn Between Superpowers

Situated along the Red Sea’s turquoise waters, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology has become a site of the U.S.-Chinese technological showdown.

The university, known as KAUST, is central to Saudi Arabia’s plans to vault to A.I. leadership. Modeled on universities like Caltech, KAUST has brought in foreign A.I. leaders and provided computing resources to build an epicenter for A.I. research.

To achieve that aim, KAUST has often turned to China to recruit students and professors and to strike research partnerships , alarming American officials. They fear students and professors from Chinese military-linked universities will use KAUST to sidestep U.S. sanctions and boost China in the race for A.I. supremacy , analysts and U.S. officials said.

Of particular concern is the university’s construction of one of the region’s fastest supercomputers, which needs thousands of microchips made by Nvidia, the biggest maker of precious chips that power A.I. systems. The university’s chip order, with an estimated value of more than $100 million, is being held up by a review from the U.S. government, which must provide an export license before the sale can go through.

Both China and the United States want to keep Prince Mohammed close. A.I. ambitions add a new layer of geopolitical significance to a kingdom already key to Middle East policy and global energy supplies. A 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia by Xi Jinping, China’s leader, paved the way for new tech cooperation. Accustomed to top-down industrial policy, Chinese companies have expanded rapidly in the kingdom, forming partnerships with major state-owned companies. The United States has pushed Saudi Arabia to pick a side, but Prince Mohammed seems content to benefit from both nations.

Mr. Schmidhuber, the researcher leading KAUST’s A.I. efforts, has seen the jostling up close. Considered a pioneer of modern A.I. — students in a lab he led included a founder of DeepMind, an innovative A.I. company now owned by Google — he was lured to the desert in 2021.

He was reluctant to move at first, he said, but university officials, via a headhunter, “tried to make it more attractive and even more attractive and even more attractive for me.”

Now Mr. Schmidhuber is awaiting the completion of the supercomputer, Shaheen 3, which is a chance to attract more top talent to the Persian Gulf and to give researchers access to computing power often reserved for major companies.

“No other university is going to have a similar thing,” he said.

Some in Washington fear the supercomputer may provide researchers from Chinese universities access to cutting-edge computing resources they would not have in China. More than a dozen students and staff members at KAUST are from military-linked Chinese universities known as the Seven Sons of National Defense, according to a review by The New York Times. During the Trump administration, the United States blocked entry to students from those universities over concerns they could take sensitive technologies back to China’s military.

“The United States should quickly move to deny export licenses to any entity if the end user is likely to be a P.R.C. actor affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army,” Representative Mike Gallagher, a Republican from Wisconsin, said in a statement.

A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the default U.S. policy was to share technology with Saudi Arabia, a critical ally in the gulf, but that there were national security concerns and risks with A.I.

The Commerce Department declined to comment. In a statement, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, “We hope that relevant countries will work with China to resist coercion, jointly safeguard a fair and open international economic and trade order, and safeguard their own long-term interests.”

A KAUST spokeswoman said, “We will strictly comply with all U.S. export license terms and conditions for the full life cycle of Shaheen 3.”

Mr. Schmidhuber said the Saudi government was ultimately aligned with the United States. Just as U.S. technology helped create Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, it will play a critical role in A.I. development.

“Nobody wants to jeopardize that,” he said.

The Gold Rush

Aladin Ben, a German Tunisian A.I. entrepreneur, was in Bali last year when he received an email from a Saudi agency working on A.I. issues. The agency knew his software start-up, Memorality, which designs tools to make it easier for businesses to incorporate A.I., and wanted to work together.

Since then, Mr. Ben, 31, has traveled to Saudi Arabia five times. He is now negotiating with the kingdom on an investment and other partnerships. But his company may need to incorporate in Saudi Arabia to get the full benefit of the government’s offer, which includes buying hundreds of annual subscriptions to his software in a contract worth roughly $800,000 a month.

“If you want a serious deal, you need to be here,” Mr. Ben said in an interview in Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia was once viewed as a source of few-strings-attached cash. Now it has added conditions to its deals, requiring many companies to establish roots in the kingdom to partake in the financial windfall.

That was evident at GAIA, an A.I. start-up accelerator, for which Saudi officials announced $1 billion in funding last month.

Each start-up in the program receives a grant worth about $40,000 in exchange for spending at least three months in Riyadh, along with a potential $100,000 investment. Entrepreneurs are required to register their company in the kingdom and spend 50 percent of their investment in Saudi Arabia. They also receive access to computing power purchased from Amazon and Google free of charge.

About 50 start-ups — including from Taiwan, South Korea, Sweden, Poland and the United States — have gone through GAIA’s program since it started last year.

“We want to attract talent, and we want them to stay,” said Mohammed Almazyad, a program manager for GAIA. “We used to rely heavily on oil, and now we want to diversify.”

One of the biggest enticements for A.I. start-ups is the chance to make the deep-pocketed Saudi government a customer. In one recent meeting, Abdullah Alswaha, a senior minister for communications and information technology, asked GAIA’s start-ups to suggest what they could provide for the Saudi government, including for megacity projects like Neom . Afterward, many of the companies received messages introducing them to state-owned businesses, Mr. Almazyad said.

“I would say this process at the first stages is not organic,” he said. “You don’t find this in Silicon Valley. Eventually the process will be organic.”

Deciding to set up in Riyadh comes with challenges. There’s the heat, reaching more than 110 degrees in the summer, as well as the adjustments of moving to a deeply religious Muslim kingdom. While Saudi Arabia has loosened some restrictions in recent years, freedom of speech remains limited and L.G.B.T.Q. people can face criminal penalties.

Mr. Almazyad, who hopes to eventually study in the United States, said cultural differences could make it hard to recruit international A.I. talent. But he cautioned against underestimating Saudi Arabia’s resolve.

“This is just the beginning,” he said.

Adam Satariano is a technology correspondent based in Europe, where his work focuses on digital policy and the intersection of technology and world affairs. More about Adam Satariano

Paul Mozur is the global technology correspondent for The Times, based in Taipei. Previously he wrote about technology and politics in Asia from Hong Kong, Shanghai and Seoul. More about Paul Mozur

Explore Our Coverage of Artificial Intelligence

News  and Analysis

Eight daily newspapers owned by Alden Global Capital sued OpenAI and Microsoft , accusing the tech companies of illegally using news articles to power their A.I. chatbots.

The spending that the tech industry’s giants expect A.I. to require, for the chips and data centers , is starting to come into focus — and it is jarringly large.

The table stakes for A.I. start-ups to compete with the likes of Microsoft and Google are in the billions of dollars. And even that may not be enough .

The Age of A.I.

A new category of apps promises to relieve parents of drudgery, with an assist from A.I . But a family’s grunt work is more human, and valuable, than it seems.

Despite Mark Zuckerberg’s hope for Meta’s A.I. assistant to be the smartest , it struggles with facts, numbers and web search.

Much as ChatGPT generates poetry, a new A.I. system devises blueprints for microscopic mechanisms  that can edit your DNA.

Could A.I. change India’s elections? Avatars are addressing voters by name, in whichever of India’s many languages they speak. Experts see potential for misuse  in a country already rife with disinformation.

Which A.I. system writes the best computer code or generates the most realistic image? Right now, there’s no easy way to answer those questions, our technology columnist writes .

Advertisement

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

U.S. Views of Technology and the Future

Science in the next 50 years.

The American public anticipates that the coming half-century will be a period of profound scientific change, as inventions that were once confined to the realm of science fiction come into common usage. This is among the main findings of a new national survey by the Pew Research Center and Smithsonian magazine , which asked Americans about a wide range of potential scientific developments—from near-term advances like robotics and bioengineering, to more “futuristic” possibilities like teleportation or space colonization. In addition to asking them for their predictions about the long-term future of scientific advancement, we also asked them to share their own feelings and attitudes toward some new developments that might become common features of American life in the relatively near future.

Overall, most Americans anticipate that the technological developments of the coming half-century will have a net positive impact on society. Some 59% are optimistic that coming technological and scientific changes will make life in the future better, while 30% think these changes will lead to a future in which people are worse off than they are today.

Many Americans pair their long-term optimism with high expectations for the inventions of the next half century. Fully eight in ten (81%) expect that within the next 50 years people needing new organs will have them custom grown in a lab, and half (51%) expect that computers will be able to create art that is indistinguishable from that produced by humans. On the other hand, the public does see limits to what science can attain in the next 50 years. Fewer than half of Americans—39%—expect that scientists will have developed the technology to teleport objects, and one in three (33%) expect that humans will have colonized planets other than Earth. Certain terrestrial challenges are viewed as even more daunting, as just 19% of Americans expect that humans will be able to control the weather in the foreseeable future.

But at the same time that many expect science to produce great breakthroughs in the coming decades, there are widespread concerns about some controversial technological developments that might occur on a shorter time horizon:

• 66% think it would be a change for the worse if prospective parents could alter the DNA of their children to produce smarter, healthier, or more athletic offspring .
• 65% think it would be a change for the worse if lifelike robots become the primary caregivers for the elderly and people in poor health .
• 63% think it would be a change for the worse if personal and commercial drones are given permission to fly through most U.S. airspace .
• 53% of Americans think it would be a change for the worse if most people wear implants or other devices that constantly show them information about the world around them . Women are especially wary of a future in which these devices are widespread.

Many Americans are also inclined to let others take the first step when it comes to trying out some potential new technologies that might emerge relatively soon.  The public is evenly divided on whether or not they would like to ride in a driverless car: 48% would be interested, while 50% would not. But significant majorities say that they are not interested in getting a brain implant to improve their memory or mental capacity (26% would, 72% would not) or in eating meat that was grown in a lab (just 20% would like to do this).

Asked to describe in their own words the futuristic inventions they themselves would like to own, the public offered three common themes: 1) travel improvements like flying cars and bikes, or even personal space crafts; 2) time travel; and 3) health improvements that extend human longevity or cure major diseases.

At the same time, many Americans seem to feel happy with the technological inventions available to them in the here and now—11% answered this question by saying that there are no futuristic inventions that they would like to own, or that they are “not interested in futuristic inventions.” And 28% weren’t sure what sort of futuristic invention they might like to own.

These are among the findings of a new survey of Americans’ attitudes and expectations about the future of technological and scientific advancements, conducted by the Pew Research Center in partnership with Smithsonian magazine . The survey, conducted February 13–18, 2014 by landline and cell phones among 1,001 adults, examined a number of potential future developments in the field of science and technology—some just over the horizon, others more speculative in nature. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

Among the detailed findings of this survey:

A majority of Americans envision a future made better by advancements in technology

When asked for their general views on technology’s long-term impact on life in the future, technological optimists outnumber pessimists by two-to-one. Six in ten Americans (59%) feel that technological advancements will lead to a future in which people’s lives are mostly better, while 30% believe that life will be mostly worse.

Demographically, these technological optimists are more likely to be men than women, and more likely to be college graduates than to have not completed college. Indeed, men with a college degree have an especially sunny outlook: 79% of this group expects that technology will have a mostly positive impact on life in the future, while just 14% expects that impact to be mostly negative. Despite having much different rates of technology use and ownership, younger and older Americans are equally positive about the long-term impact of technological change on life in the future.

Predictions for the future: eight in ten Americans think that custom organ transplants will be a reality in the next 50 years, but just one in five think that humans will control the weather

Americans envision a range of probable outcomes when asked for their own predictions about whether or not some “futuristic” inventions might become reality in the next half-century. Eight in ten believe that people needing organ transplants will have new organs custom-built for them in a laboratory, but an equal number believe that control of the weather will remain outside the reach of science. And on other issues—for example, the ability of computers to create art rivaling that produced by humans—the public is much more evenly split.

A substantial majority of Americans (81%) believe that within the next 50 years people needing an organ transplant will have new organs custom made for them in a lab . Belief that this development will occur is especially high among men (86% of whom believe this will happen), those under age 50 (86%), those who have attended college (85%), and those with relatively high household incomes. But although expectations for this development are especially high within these groups, three-quarters or more of every major demographic group feels that custom organs are likely to become a reality in the next half-century.

The public is more evenly split on whether computers will soon match humans when it comes to creating music, novels, paintings, or other important works of art : 51% think that this will happen in the next 50 years, while 45% think that it will not. In contrast to their expectations for custom-built organs, college graduates and those with high incomes are comparatively unlikely to expect that computers will advance to this level of development. Some 59% of college graduates and 57% of Americans earning $75,000 or more per year feel that computers will not be able to produce works of art that are on par with those produced by humans within the next 50 years.

Compared with custom organs and computer produced art, the public has less confidence that the two common science fiction tropes of teleportation and colonization of other planets will come to pass. Two in five Americans (39%) think that teleportation will be possible within the next 50 years, while slightly fewer—33%—expect to live in a world in which humans have long-term colonies on other planets. Young adults are especially likely to view space colonization as a long-term eventuality: 43% of 18-29 year olds see this happening in the next half-century, compared with about a quarter of those over age 50. On the other hand, high-income Americans are pessimistic about the prospects of space colonization: just 20% of those with an annual household income of $75,000 or more think this is a realistic prediction.

From a list of futuristic inventions that includes space colonies and teleportation, Americans actually have the least confidence in the prediction that humans of the future will be able to control the weather : just 19% of the public thinks that this will probably happen. Older adults are especially pessimistic about this development, as just 11% of Americans ages 65 and older think that controlling the weather is likely to happen over the next 50 years. But even among the most “optimistic” demographic groups, the expectation that humans will control the weather in the next half-century is a decidedly minority viewpoint.

Despite their general optimism about the long-term impact of scientific advancement, many Americans are wary of some controversial changes that may be on the near-term horizon

Advancements such as teleportation or space colonization will likely require massive leaps in scientific knowledge and effort before they can become a reality, but the widespread adoption of other “futuristic” developments is potentially much nearer at hand. With the recent introduction of Google Glass and other wearable computing devices, for example, it may be only a matter of time before most people walk around being directly fed a constant stream of digital information about their surroundings. And the widespread use of personal and commercial drones may depend as heavily on regulatory decisions as on advances in engineering.

Despite their general optimism about the long-term impact of technological change, Americans express significant reservations about some of these potentially short-term developments. We asked about four potential—and in many cases controversial—technological advancements that might become common in near future, and for each one a majority of Americans feel that it would be a change for the worse if those technologies become commonly used.

Of the four potential developments we measured, public attitudes towards ubiquitous wearable or implanted computing devices are the most positive, or more accurately, the least negative. Although 53% of Americans think it would be a bad thing if “most people wear implants or other devices that constantly show them information about the world around them,” just over one third (37%) think this would be a change for the better.

Men and women have largely similar attitudes toward most of these potential societal changes, but diverge substantially in their attitudes toward ubiquitous wearable or implantable computing devices. Men are evenly split on whether this would be a good thing: 44% feel that it would be a change for the better and 46% a change for the worse. But women overwhelmingly feel (by a 59%–29% margin) that the widespread use of these devices would be a negative 

The legal and regulatory framework for operating non-military drones is currently the subject of much debate , but the public is largely unenthusiastic: 63% of Americans think it would be a change for the worse if “personal and commercial drones are given permission to fly through most U.S. airspace,” while 22% think it would be a change for the better. Men and younger adults are a bit more excited about this prospect than are women and older adults. Some 27% of men (vs. 18% of women), and 30% of 18–29 year olds (vs. 16% of those 65 and older) think this would be a change for the better. But even among these groups, substantial majorities (60% of men and 61% of 18-29 year olds) think it would be a bad thing if commercial and personal drones become much more prevalent in future years.

Countries such as Japan are already experimenting with the use of robot caregivers to help care for a rapidly aging population, but Americans are generally wary. Some 65% think it would be a change for the worse if robots become the primary caregivers to the elderly and people in poor health. Interestingly, opinions on this question are nearly identical across the entire age spectrum: young, middle aged, and older Americans are equally united in the assertion that widespread use of robot caregivers would generally be a negative development.

Americans have similar apprehensions toward the issue of designer babies: 66% feel that it will be a change for the worse if “prospective parents can alter the DNA of their children to produce smarter, healthier, or more athletic offspring,” while 26% say it would be a good thing if this happens. Lower-income Americans have slightly more positive views on this subject than those in higher income brackets: 31% of those earning less than $30,000 per year think this would be a change for the better, while just 18% of those earning $50,000 or more per year agree.

Those Americans who are optimistic about the future of scientific advancement in a general sense tend to be more open—up to a point—toward the benefits of some of these more controversial developments. These long-term optimists (that is, those who agree with the statement that “technological changes will lead to a future in which people’s lives are mostly better”) are roughly twice as likely as long-term pessimists to say that it will be a change for the better if personal drones become widespread (28% vs. 14%) and if many people wear devices or implants that feed them digital information about their surroundings (46% vs. 23%). They are also receptive toward robot caregivers (33% think these would be a change for the better, while 21% of pessimists feel this way) and toward designer babies (31% vs. 19%). But notably, even within this “optimist” group, a substantial majority feel that most of these developments would be a bad thing overall.

Americans are somewhat apprehensive about trying some potential new inventions themselves; driverless cars garner the most widespread interest

Most new inventions appeal at first to a relatively small group of adventuresome early adopters, with the bulk of consumers following along only after they have had a chance to see for themselves what the fuss is about. And indeed, many Americans have a pronounced skepticism toward some new inventions that they might be able to use or purchase in the relatively near future.

Of the three inventions we asked them about, Americans are most interested in riding in a driverless car : 48% would like to do this if given the opportunity, while 50% say this is something they would not want to do. College graduates are particularly interested in giving driverless cars a try: 59% of them would do so, while 62% of those with a high school diploma or less would not. There is also a geographical split on this issue: Half of urban (52%) and suburban (51%) residents are interested in driverless cars, but just 36% of rural residents say this is something they’d find appealing.

Other potential inventions appeal to a much smaller proportion of the public. One quarter of Americans (26%) say they would get a brain implant to improve their memory or mental capacity if it were possible to do so, while 72% would not. College graduates are the main demographic group that stands out on this issue: 37% of them would be willing to get a performance-enhancing brain implant if given the chance.

Similarly, just one in five Americans (20%) would be willing to eat meat that was grown in a lab . Men express a greater willingness to do so than women (27% of men and 14% of women say they would give lab grown meat a try), and college graduates are around three times as likely as those who have not attended college to say this is something they’d attempt (30% vs. 11%).

New modes of travel, improved health and longevity, and the ability to travel through time top the list of futuristic inventions Americans would like to own

In addition to capturing the public’s attitudes toward specific inventions or future outcomes, we also offered them the opportunity to tell us—in their own words—which futuristic invention they themselves would want to own.

Based on their responses, many Americans are looking forward to a future in which getting from place to place is easier, more comfortable, or more adventuresome than it is today. A total of 19% of Americans would like to own a travel-related invention of some kind, including: a flying car or flying bike (6%), a personal space craft (4%), a self-driving car (3%), a teleportation device (3%), a jet pack (1%), or a hover car or hover board (1%).

Time travel and health-related inventions also rank highly. One in ten Americans (9%) list the ability to travel through time as the futuristic invention they would like to have, and an identical 9% would want something that improved their health, increased their lifespan, or cured major diseases. At the same time, many Americans seem to feel happy with the technological inventions available to them in the here and now—11% answered this question by saying that there are no futuristic inventions that they would like to own, or that they are “not interested in futuristic inventions.” And just over one quarter of them (28%) weren’t sure what type of futuristic invention they would like to own.

Younger adults are especially excited at the prospect of new travel options in the future. Some 31% of 18–29 year olds mentioned some sort of travel-related invention as the future technology they would like to own, significantly higher than any other age group. Meanwhile, some middle aged Americans just want some help around the house—8% of those ages 30–49 said they would want a personal robot or robot servant. And although interest in time travel is fairly consistent across age groups, it holds little appeal to older adults—just 3% of seniors mentioned time travel or a time machine as their future invention of choice. Indeed, many older Americans seem unexcited about futuristic inventions of any kind, as 15% say there is no particular invention they would like to own, and 41% are unsure what type of invention they would enjoy.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Internet & Technology

Americans’ Views of Technology Companies

6 facts about americans and tiktok, many americans think generative ai programs should credit the sources they rely on, americans’ use of chatgpt is ticking up, but few trust its election information, whatsapp and facebook dominate the social media landscape in middle-income nations, most popular, report materials.

• Press Release
• Feb. 13-18, 2014 – Views of Science and the Future

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Suggested Searches

• Climate Change
• Expedition 64
• Mars perseverance
• SpaceX Crew-2
• International Space Station
• View All Topics A-Z

Humans in Space

Earth & climate, the solar system, the universe, aeronautics, learning resources, news & events.

How NASA’s Roman Mission Will Hunt for Primordial Black Holes

International SWOT Mission Can Improve Flood Prediction

New NASA Black Hole Visualization Takes Viewers Beyond the Brink

• Search All NASA Missions
• A to Z List of Missions
• Upcoming Launches and Landings
• Spaceships and Rockets
• Communicating with Missions
• James Webb Space Telescope
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Why Go to Space
• Astronauts Home
• Commercial Space
• Destinations
• Living in Space
• Explore Earth Science
• Earth, Our Planet
• Earth Science in Action
• Earth Multimedia
• Earth Science Researchers
• Pluto & Dwarf Planets
• Asteroids, Comets & Meteors
• The Kuiper Belt
• The Oort Cloud
• Skywatching
• The Search for Life in the Universe
• Black Holes
• The Big Bang
• Dark Energy & Dark Matter
• Earth Science
• Planetary Science
• Astrophysics & Space Science
• The Sun & Heliophysics
• Biological & Physical Sciences
• Lunar Science
• Citizen Science
• Astromaterials
• Aeronautics Research
• Human Space Travel Research
• Science in the Air
• NASA Aircraft
• Flight Innovation
• Supersonic Flight
• Air Traffic Solutions
• Green Aviation Tech
• Drones & You
• Technology Transfer & Spinoffs
• Space Travel Technology
• Technology Living in Space
• Manufacturing and Materials
• Science Instruments
• For Kids and Students
• For Educators
• For Colleges and Universities
• For Professionals
• Science for Everyone
• Requests for Exhibits, Artifacts, or Speakers
• STEM Engagement at NASA
• NASA's Impacts
• Centers and Facilities
• Directorates
• Organizations
• People of NASA
• Internships
• Our History
• Doing Business with NASA
• Get Involved
• Aeronáutica
• Ciencias Terrestres
• Sistema Solar
• All NASA News
• Video Series on NASA+
• Newsletters
• Social Media
• Media Resources
• Upcoming Launches & Landings
• Virtual Events
• Sounds and Ringtones
• Interactives
• STEM Multimedia

Ken Carpenter: Ensuring Top-Tier Science from Moon to Stars

NASA Mission Strengthens 40-Year Friendship 

NASA Selects Commercial Service Studies to Enable Mars Robotic Science

NASA’s Commercial Partners Deliver Cargo, Crew for Station Science

NASA Is Helping Protect Tigers, Jaguars, and Elephants. Here’s How.

Two Small NASA Satellites Will Measure Soil Moisture, Volcanic Gases

C.26 Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return Correction and Other Documents Posted

NASA Selects Students for Europa Clipper Intern Program

Orbits and Kepler’s Laws

Breaking the Scaling Limits: New Ultralow-noise Superconducting Camera for Exoplanet Searches

ARMD Solicitations

NASA’s Commitment to Safety Starts with its Culture

NASA Uses Small Engine to Enhance Sustainable Jet Research

Tech Today: NASA’s Ion Thruster Knowhow Keeps Satellites Flying

Big Science Drives Wallops’ Upgrades for NASA Suborbital Missions

NASA Community College Aerospace Scholars

NASA Grant Brings Students at Underserved Institutions to the Stars

White Sands Propulsion Team Tests 3D-Printed Orion Engine Component

A Different Perspective – Remembering James Dean, Founder of the NASA Art Program

Diez maneras en que los estudiantes pueden prepararse para ser astronautas

Astronauta de la NASA Marcos Berríos

Resultados científicos revolucionarios en la estación espacial de 2023

• Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Nine companies have been selected to conduct early-stage studies of concepts for commercial services to support lower-cost, higher-frequency missions to the Red Planet.

NASA has identified nine U.S. companies to perform a total of 12 concept studies of how commercial services can be applied to enable science missions to Mars. Each awardee will receive between $200,000 and $300,000 to produce a detailed report on potential services — including payload delivery, communications relay, surface imaging, and payload hosting — that could support future missions to the Red Planet.

The companies were selected from among those that responded to a Jan. 29 request for proposals from U.S. industry.

NASA’s Mars Exploration Program initiated the request for proposals to help establish a new paradigm for missions to Mars with the potential to advance high-priority science objectives. Many of the selected proposals center on adapting existing projects currently focused on the Moon and Earth to Mars-based applications.

They include “space tugs” to carry other spacecraft to Mars, spacecraft to host science instruments and cameras, and telecommunications relays. The concepts being sought are intended to support a broad strategy of partnerships between government, industry, and international partners to enable frequent, lower-cost missions to Mars over the next 20 years.

“We’re in an exciting new era of space exploration, with rapid growth of commercial interest and capabilities,” said Eric Ianson, director of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program. “Now is the right time for NASA to begin looking at how public-private partnerships could support science at Mars in the coming decades.”

The selected Mars Exploration Commercial Services studies are divided into four categories:

Small payload delivery and hosting services

• Lockheed Martin Corporation, Littleton, Colorado — adapt a lunar-exploration spacecraft
• Impulse Space, Inc., Redondo Beach, California — adapt an Earth-vicinity orbital transfer vehicle (space tug)
• Firefly Aerospace, Cedar Park, Texas — adapt a lunar-exploration spacecraft

Large payload delivery and hosting services

• United Launch Services (ULA), LLC, Centennial, Colorado — modify an Earth-vicinity cryogenic upper stage
• Blue Origin, LLC, Kent, Washington — adapt an Earth- and lunar-vicinity spacecraft
• Astrobotic Technology, Inc., Pittsburgh — modify a lunar-exploration spacecraft

Mars surface-imaging services

• Albedo Space Corporation, Broomfield, Colorado — adapt a low Earth orbit imaging satellite
• Redwire Space, Inc., Littleton, Colorado — modify a low Earth orbit commercial imaging spacecraft
• Astrobotic Technology, Inc. — modify a lunar exploration spacecraft to include imaging

Next-generation relay services

• Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), Hawthorne, California — adapt Earth-orbit communication satellites for Mars
• Lockheed Martin Corporation — provide communication relay services via a modified Mars orbiter
• Blue Origin, LLC — provide communication relay services via an adapted Earth- and lunar-vicinity spacecraft

The 12-week studies are planned to conclude in August, and a study summary will be released later in the year. These studies could potentially lead to future requests for proposals but do not constitute a NASA commitment.

NASA is concurrently requesting separate industry proposals for its Mars Sample Return campaign, which seeks to bring samples being collected by the agency’s Perseverance rover to Earth, where they can be studied by laboratory equipment too large and complex to bring to Mars. The MSR industry studies are completely independent of the MEP commercial studies.

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California manages the Mars Exploration Program on behalf of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The goal of the program is to provide a continuous flow of scientific information and discovery through a carefully selected series of robotic orbiters, landers, and mobile laboratories interconnected by a high-bandwidth Mars-Earth communications network. Scientific data and associated information for all Mars Exploration Program missions are archived in the NASA Planetary Data System.

Caltech in Pasadena, California, manages JPL for NASA.

News Media Contacts

Andrew Good Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 818-393-2433 [email protected]

Karen Fox / Charles Blue NASA Headquarters, Washington 301-286-6284 / 202-802-5345 [email protected] / [email protected]

Related Terms

• Science-enabling Technology
• Space Communications Technology
• Technology Research
• The Future of Commercial Space

Explore More

When imaging faint objects such as distant stars or exoplanets, capturing every last bit of…

NASA Scientists Gear Up for Solar Storms at Mars

Major Martian Milestones

There’s good news from NASA’s Cloudspotting on Mars project! That’s the project that invites you to…

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Nuno Loureiro named director of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Nuno Loureiro, professor of nuclear science and engineering and of physics, has been appointed the new director of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, effective May 1.

Loureiro is taking the helm of one of MIT’s largest labs: more than 250 full-time researchers, staff members, and students work and study in seven buildings with 250,000 square feet of lab space. A theoretical physicist and fusion scientist, Loureiro joined MIT as a faculty member in 2016, and was appointed deputy director of the Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC) in 2022. Loureiro succeeds Dennis Whyte, who stepped down at the end of 2023 to return to teaching and research.

Stepping into his new role as director, Loureiro says, “The PSFC has an impressive tradition of discovery and leadership in plasma and fusion science and engineering. Becoming director of the PSFC is an incredible opportunity to shape the future of these fields. We have a world-class team, and it’s an honor to be chosen as its leader.”

Loureiro’s own research ranges widely. He is recognized for advancing the understanding of multiple aspects of plasma behavior, particularly turbulence and the physics underpinning solar flares and other astronomical phenomena. In the fusion domain, his work enables the design of fusion devices that can more efficiently control and harness the energy of fusing plasmas, bringing the dream of clean, near-limitless fusion power that much closer. 

Plasma physics is foundational to advancing fusion science, a fact Loureiro has embraced and that is relevant as he considers the direction of the PSFC’s multidisciplinary research. “But plasma physics is only one aspect of our focus. Building a scientific agenda that continues and expands on the PSFC’s history of innovation in all aspects of fusion science and engineering is vital, and a key facet of that work is facilitating our researchers’ efforts to produce the breakthroughs that are necessary for the realization of fusion energy.”

As the climate crisis accelerates, fusion power continues to grow in appeal: It produces no carbon emissions, its fuel is plentiful, and dangerous “meltdowns” are impossible. The sooner that fusion power is commercially available, the greater impact it can have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting global climate goals. While technical challenges remain, “the PSFC is well poised to meet them, and continue to show leadership. We are a mission-driven lab, and our students and staff are incredibly motivated,” Loureiro comments.

“As MIT continues to lead the way toward the delivery of clean fusion power onto the grid, I have no doubt that Nuno is the right person to step into this key position at this critical time,” says Maria T. Zuber, MIT’s presidential advisor for science and technology policy. “I look forward to the steady advance of plasma physics and fusion science at MIT under Nuno’s leadership.”

Over the last decade, there have been massive leaps forward in the field of fusion energy, driven in part by innovations like high-temperature superconducting magnets developed at the PSFC. Further progress is guaranteed: Loureiro believes that “The next few years are certain to be an exciting time for us, and for fusion as a whole. It’s the dawn of a new era with burning plasma experiments” — a reference to the collaboration between the PSFC and Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a startup company spun out of the PSFC, to build SPARC, a fusion device that is slated to turn on in 2026 and produce a burning plasma that yields more energy than it consumes. “It’s going to be a watershed moment,” says Loureiro.

He continues, “In addition, we have strong connections to inertial confinement fusion experiments, including those at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and we’re looking forward to expanding our research into stellarators, which are another kind of magnetic fusion device.” Over recent years, the PSFC has significantly increased its collaboration with industrial partners such Eni, IBM, and others. Loureiro sees great value in this: “These collaborations are mutually beneficial: they allow us to grow our research portfolio while advancing companies’ R&D efforts. It’s very dynamic and exciting.”

Loureiro’s directorship begins as the PSFC is launching key tech development projects like LIBRA, a “blanket” of molten salt that can be wrapped around fusion vessels and perform double duty as a neutron energy absorber and a breeder for tritium (the fuel for fusion). Researchers at the PSFC have also developed a way to rapidly test the durability of materials being considered for use in a fusion power plant environment, and are now creating an experiment that will utilize a powerful particle accelerator called a gyrotron to irradiate candidate materials.

Interest in fusion is at an all-time high; the demand for researchers and engineers, particularly in the nascent commercial fusion industry, is reflected by the record number of graduate students that are studying at the PSFC — more than 90 across seven affiliated MIT departments. The PSFC’s classrooms are full, and Loureiro notes a palpable sense of excitement. “Students are our greatest strength,” says Loureiro. “They come here to do world-class research but also to grow as individuals, and I want to give them a great place to do that. Supporting those experiences, making sure they can be as successful as possible is one of my top priorities.” Loureiro plans to continue teaching and advising students after his appointment begins.

MIT President Sally Kornbluth’s recently announced Climate Project is a clarion call for Loureiro: “It’s not hyperbole to say MIT is where you go to find solutions to humanity’s biggest problems,” he says. “Fusion is a hard problem, but it can be solved with resolve and ingenuity — characteristics that define MIT. Fusion energy will change the course of human history. It’s both humbling and exciting to be leading a research center that will play a key role in enabling that change.” 

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Nuno Loureiro
• Plasma Science and Fusion Center
• Department of Physics
• Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering

Related Topics

• Nuclear science and engineering
• Renewable energy
• Nuclear power and reactors
• Climate change
• Sustainability

Related Articles

Tests show high-temperature superconducting magnets are ready for fusion

Dennis Whyte steps down as director of the Plasma Science and Fusion Center

Seven from MIT named American Physical Society Fellows for 2022

Nuno Loureiro: Understanding turbulence in plasmas

Nuno Loureiro: Probing the world of plasmas

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Two MIT PhD students awarded J-WAFS fellowships for their research on water

Read full story →

Exploring the mysterious alphabet of sperm whales

“Pathways to Invention” documentary debuts on PBS, streaming

This sound-suppressing silk can create quiet spaces

William Green named director of MIT Energy Initiative

Seizing solar’s bright future

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

Davos 2023: Eight ways technology will impact our lives in the future

The next generation will live a very different life to us, thanks to technology. Image:  Pexels/ThisIsEngineering

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Julie Masiga

Natalie marchant.

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} The Metaverse is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, tech and innovation.

Listen to the article

• Technology will be a vital tool for creating a cleaner, safer and more inclusive world, but what changes can we expect to see?
• Panelists on the Technology for a More Resilient World session at Davos discussed future trends and developments in tech.
• Be it the metaverse, smart glasses or large language models, the world as we know it may never be quite as we first imagined it.

Technology can be an important tool in the transition to a cleaner, safer and more inclusive world. But what strategic opportunities are there for technology to be an accelerator of progress and how is it likely to affect the next generation?

Leaders gathered on day two of Davos to talk about how technology and platforms will change the world, what tech trends and developments we’re likely to see, and even provide a glimpse into what our grandchildren can expect in future.

The Technology for a More Resilient World session featured Nicholas Thompson, CEO, The Atlantic; Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman, Bharti Enterprises; Arvind Krishna, Chairman and CEO, IBM Corporation; Julie Sweet, Chair and CEO, Accenture; and Cristiano Amon, President and CEO, Qualcomm Incorporated.

Here’s a selection of what they had to say:

1. Technology is boosting productivity

Businesses are increasingly looking to digitally transform their operations amid an incredible demand for things to be more intelligent and connected, says Cristiano Amon , President and CEO of Qualcomm Incorporated. “I think technology right now, probably more than ever – especially when we talk about the current economic environment – we see that there is this desire of companies to digitally transform and use technology to become more efficient and more productive,” he said.

2. Glasses will overtake mobile phones

The future of computing will become virtual as computing platforms continue to evolve – just as it evolved from personal computers to mobile phones, says Amon . What we now know as the video call, particularly post-COVID, will soon become a holographic image in front of you seen through smart glasses.

“The technology trend is the merging of physical and digital spaces. I think that’s going to be the next computing platform and eventually, it’s going to be as big as phones. We should think about that happening within the decade,” he adds.

Have you read?

How to follow davos 2023, we are closing the gap between technology and policy, 3. the rise of quantum computing.

Quantum computing won’t replace classical computing but it will begin to solve problems in the physical world - materials, chemistry, encryption and optimization problems - within a few years, according to Arvind Krishna , Chairman and CEO, IBM Corporation. Indeed, quantum computing is already so good you may want to think about it now. “I would strongly urge everybody to invest in quantum-proof decryption now for any data, that you really, really care about,” he advises.

4. 5G will create lots more use cases

5G will create a lot of new use cases including drone management, robotic surgery and autonomous vehicles, says Sunil Bharti Mittal , Chairman, Bharti Enterprises. Industrial applications will particularly benefit due to their larger capacity. “In the meanwhile, people will get used to better connections, higher speeds, and lower latency for their regular devices as well,” he adds, before warning: “It’s going to cost a lot of money.”

5. ChatGPT-like tech will become the norm

Large language models will become a given because they lower the cost of artificial intelligence (AI) by allowing you to have multiple models over one base, giving you a speed advantage, says Krishna . “Beyond language is going to be a given, language because code can be a form of language and then you can go to, ‘what else can be a form of language?’ Legal documents, regulatory work etc,” he adds.

6. Great things will need good data

The recent excitement around ChatGPT has demonstrated the potential of having large amounts of data and the great things you do with it, but it has also highlighted the need for ‘good’ data, says Julie Sweet , Chair and CEO, Accenture. “We love what’s going on right now, with everyone talking about it. Because in many cases people have been doubters about why you need to have really clean data connecting to external data, use these then foundational models on specific use cases – a lot is going to be in digital manufacturing, in agriculture, industrial use cases – and it reminds everyone you have to get the data right.”

7. The metaverse is evolving very quickly

The metaverse is evolving faster than expected because it taps into human need while also creating something new, observes Sweet . “With human need, what we’ve discovered is that when you immerse yourself in an experience together, you learn better and you can also do things better,” she says. “We estimate there will be $1 trillion of revenue influenced by the metaverse by 2025.”

8. We will see a democratization of services

Our grandchildren will live in a very different world thanks to the democratization of products and services that are currently only available to the elite or wealthy, predicts Mittal . “Sitting like this, in the metaverse, you’ll probably have a few million people join from around the world, to experience what we’re experiencing today,” he says. “You’re going to see the benefit of technology really impacting people’s lives on a daily basis, and they will live a very different life to us.”

Watch the full session here .

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

The future of nuclear technologies: key trends, threats and opportunities

Scientists identify and analyse trends that are shaping the development of nuclear technology in the EU, including, among other, start-ups, decarbonisation and integration of digital technologies.

A JRC study applying foresight methodologies identified 11 topics critical to the future of nuclear technology in the EU. They range from the resurgence of nuclear start-ups to the potential for nuclear technology to facilitate decarbonisation of hard-to-abate sectors and the integration of digital technologies into the nuclear sector.

The study, Long-Term Horizon Scanning for Nuclear Technologies Yearly Report – 2023 , also looked into potential threats and opportunities mid-term (2033) and longer-term (2053), and emphasised the need for an ongoing anticipatory approach to policy-making.

The nuclear industry is experiencing a renaissance with the rise of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), leading to numerous start-ups using digital tools. Moreover, due to the current geopolitical situation, the topic of nuclear fuel strategic autonomy is a key element for achieving self-sufficient fuel production in Europe. The introduction of new technologies and design methods should also help the nuclear industry to respond to the growing reliance on digital infrastructure.

To reach the objectives of the EU Green Deal and to meet the EU’s climate change mitigation and energy-mix targets for 2030, nuclear energy could offer solutions to reduce emissions in industries that have traditionally been difficult to decarbonise, through for example clean hydrogen production. These industries include steel, cement, petrochemicals, aluminium, aviation, concrete, shipping, and trucking, collectively accounting for nearly 30% of global emissions.

In a separate study , the JRC elaborates on the potential of nuclear hydrogen in steelmaking, an industry responsible for around 5% of all CO2 emissions in the EU. Hydrogen could be used in the production of steel, and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) could co-generate hydrogen, electricity, and heat locally at the steel mill, improving efficiency and simplifying the required infrastructure. HTGRs have already been built in some European countries with new initiatives continuing to emerge, demonstrating the feasibility of the technology.

Nuclear technologies may also be integrated into the EU’s circular economy model, to address radioactive waste challenges. In its horizon scanning for nuclear technologies in the future, the first study identifies an opportunity for the EU to decide on a course of action in the area of nuclear energy in space, and to become a relevant actor in shaping the role of nuclear energy in space.

Furthermore, the fast advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology raises safety concerns, which have led to the effort to try to regulate and control its use. Historical frameworks such as the Euratom Treaty , which was instrumental in fostering the growth and collaboration around nuclear technology in Europe, can provide valuable precedents for developing cooperative approaches to contemporary challenges, such as the regulation and development of AI.

All the opportunities and challenges identified in the two studies require technology and talent for long term operation. Notably, the nuclear sector needs to attract young skilled talents, to maintain nuclear competences and skills, and the deployment of innovative technologies for a safer, more secure and efficient use of nuclear energy.

Related content

Long-Term Horizon Scanning for Nuclear Technologies Yearly Report – 2023

Nuclear Hydrogen for Steelmaking

• Green transition
• Safe nuclear technology

More news on a similar topic

• News announcement
• 22 March 2024

• General publications
• 21 March 2024

• 12 March 2024

• 6 March 2024

Share this page

MIT Technology Review

• Newsletters

What’s next for batteries

Expect new battery chemistries for electric vehicles and a manufacturing boost thanks to government funding this year.

• Casey Crownhart archive page

Every year the world runs more and more on batteries. Electric vehicles passed 10% of global vehicle sales in 2022, and they’re on track to reach 30% by the end of this decade . 

Policies around the world are only going to accelerate this growth: recent climate legislation in the US is pumping billions into battery manufacturing and incentives for EV purchases. The European Union, and several states in the US, passed bans on gas-powered vehicles starting in 2035 . 

The transition will require lots of batteries—and better and cheaper ones. 

Most EVs today are powered by lithium-ion batteries, a decades-old technology that’s also used in laptops and cell phones. All those years of development have helped push prices down and improve performance, so today’s EVs are approaching the price of gas-powered cars and can go for hundreds of miles between charges. Lithium-ion batteries are also finding new applications, including electricity storage on the grid that can help balance out intermittent renewable power sources like wind and solar. 

But there is still lots of room for improvement. Academic labs and companies alike are hunting for ways to improve the technology—boosting capacity, speeding charging time, and cutting costs. The goal is even cheaper batteries that will provide cheap storage for the grid and allow EVs to travel far greater distances on a charge.

At the same time, concerns about supplies of key battery materials like cobalt and lithium are pushing a search for alternatives to the standard lithium-ion chemistry. 

In the midst of the soaring demand for EVs and renewable power and an explosion in battery development, one thing is certain: batteries will play a key role in the transition to renewable energy. Here’s what to expect in 2023.

A radical rethink

Some dramatically different approaches to EV batteries could see progress in 2023, though they will likely take longer to make a commercial impact.

One advance to keep an eye on this year is in so-called solid-state batteries. Lithium-ion batteries and related chemistries use a liquid electrolyte that shuttles charge around; solid-state batteries replace this liquid with ceramics or other solid materials. 

This swap unlocks possibilities that pack more energy into a smaller space, potentially improving the range of electric vehicles. Solid-state batteries could also move charge around faster, meaning shorter charging times. And because some solvents used in electrolytes can be flammable, proponents of solid-state batteries say they improve safety by cutting fire risk. 

Solid-state batteries can use a wide range of chemistries, but a leading candidate for commercialization uses lithium metal . Quantumscape , for one, is focused on that technology and raised hundreds of millions in funding before going public in 2020. The company has a deal with Volkswagen that could put its batteries in cars by 2025.  

But completely reinventing batteries has proved difficult, and lithium-metal batteries have seen concerns about degradation over time, as well as manufacturing challenges. Quantumscape announced in late December it had delivered samples to automotive partners for testing, a significant milestone on the road to getting solid-state batteries into cars. Other solid-state-battery players, like Solid Power , are also working to build and test their batteries. But while they could reach major milestones this year as well, their batteries won’t make it into vehicles on the road in 2023. 

Solid-state batteries aren’t the only new technology to watch out for. Sodium-ion batteries also swerve sharply from lithium-ion chemistries common today. These batteries have a design similar to that of lithium-ion batteries, including a liquid electrolyte, but instead of relying on lithium, they use sodium as the main chemical ingredient. Chinese battery giant CATL reportedly plans to begin mass-producing them in 2023. 

Sodium-ion batteries may not improve performance, but they could cut costs because they rely on cheaper, more widely available materials than lithium-ion chemistries do. But it’s not clear whether these batteries will be able to meet needs for EV range and charging time, which is why several companies going after the technology, like US-based Natron , are targeting less demanding applications to start, like stationary storage or micromobility devices such as e-bikes and scooters. 

Today, the market for batteries aimed at stationary grid storage is small—about one-tenth the size of the market for EV batteries, according to Yayoi Sekine , head of energy storage at energy research firm BloombergNEF. But demand for electricity storage is growing as more renewable power is installed, since major renewable power sources like wind and solar are variable, and batteries can help store energy for when it’s needed. 

Lithium-ion batteries aren’t ideal for stationary storage, even though they’re commonly used for it today. While batteries for EVs are getting smaller, lighter, and faster, the primary goal for stationary storage is to cut costs. Size and weight don’t matter as much for grid storage, which means different chemistries will likely win out. 

One rising star in stationary storage is iron , and two players could see progress in the coming year. Form Energy is developing an iron-air battery that uses a water-based electrolyte and basically stores energy using reversible rusting. The company recently announced a $760 million manufacturing facility in Weirton, West Virginia, scheduled to begin construction in 2023. Another company, ESS , is building a different type of iron battery that employs similar chemistry; it has begun manufacturing at its headquarters in Wilsonville, Oregon.

Shifts within the standard

Lithium-ion batteries keep getting better and cheaper, but researchers are tweaking the technology further to eke out greater performance and lower costs.

Some of the motivation comes from the price volatility of battery materials, which could drive companies to change chemistries. “It’s a cost game,” Sekine says.

Cathodes are typically one of the most expensive parts of a battery, and a type of cathode called NMC (nickel manganese cobalt) is the dominant variety in EV batteries today. But those three elements, in addition to lithium, are expensive, so cutting some or all of them could help decrease costs. 

This year could be a breakout year for one alternative: lithium iron phosphate (LFP), a low-cost cathode material sometimes used for lithium-ion batteries. 

Recent improvements in LFP chemistry and manufacturing have helped boost the performance of these batteries, and companies are moving to adopt the technology: LFP market share is growing quickly , from about 10% of the global EV market in 2018 to about 40% in 2022. Tesla is already using LFP batteries in some vehicles, and automakers like Ford and Volkswagen announced that they plan to start offering some EV models with the chemistry too.

Though battery research tends to focus on cathode chemistries, anodes are also in line to get a makeover.

Most anodes in lithium-ion batteries today, whatever their cathode makeup, use graphite to hold the lithium ions. But alternatives like silicon could help increase energy density and speed up charging.

Silicon anodes have been the subject of research for years, but historically they haven’t had a long enough lifetime to last in products. Now though, companies are starting to expand production of the materials.

In 2021, startup Sila began producing silicon anodes for batteries in a wearable fitness device. The company was recently awarded a $100 million grant from the Department of Energy to help build a manufacturing facility in Moses Lake, Washington. The factory will serve Sila’s partnership with Mercedes-Benz and is expected to produce materials for EV batteries starting in 2025.

Other startups are working to blend silicon and graphite together for anodes. OneD Battery Sciences , which has partnered with GM, and Sionic Energy could take additional steps toward commercialization this year.  

Policies shaping products

The Inflation Reduction Act , which was passed in late 2022, sets aside nearly $370 billion in funding for climate and clean energy, including billions for EV and battery manufacturing. “Everybody’s got their mind on the IRA,” says Yet-Ming Chiang , a materials researcher at MIT and founder of multiple battery companies.

The IRA will provide loans and grants to battery makers in the US, boosting capacity. In addition, EV tax credits in the law incentivize automakers to source battery materials in the US or from its free-trade partners and manufacture batteries in North America. Because of both the IRA’s funding and the EV tax credit restrictions, automakers will continue announcing new manufacturing capacity in the US and finding new ways to source materials.

All that means there will be more and more demand for the key ingredients in lithium-ion batteries, including lithium, cobalt, and nickel. One possible outcome from the IRA incentives is an increase in already growing interest around battery recycling . While there won’t be enough EVs coming off the road anytime soon to meet the demand for some crucial materials, recycling is starting to heat up.

CATL and other Chinese companies have led in battery recycling, but the industry could see significant growth in other major EV markets like North America and Europe this year. Nevada-based Redwood Materials and Li-Cycle , which is headquartered in Toronto, are building facilities and working to separate and purify key battery metals like lithium and nickel to be reused in batteries. 

Li-Cycle is set to begin commissioning its main recycling facility in 2023. Redwood Materials has started producing its first product, a copper foil, from its facility outside Reno, Nevada, and recently announced plans to build its second facility beginning this year in Charleston, South Carolina.

With the flood of money from the IRA and other policies around the world fueling demand for EVs and their batteries, 2023 is going to be a year to watch.

Climate change and energy

The problem with plug-in hybrids their drivers..

Plug-in hybrids are often sold as a transition to EVs, but new data from Europe shows we’re still underestimating the emissions they produce.

Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment

The decision follows years of controversy and the departure of one of the program’s key researchers.

• James Temple archive page

Decarbonizing production of energy is a quick win 

Clean technologies, including carbon management platforms, enable the global energy industry to play a crucial role in the transition to net zero.

• ADNOC archive page

How thermal batteries are heating up energy storage

The systems, which can store clean energy as heat, were chosen by readers as the 11th Breakthrough Technology of 2024.

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.

share this!

May 6, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

How technology is revolutionizing insect research

by Aarhus University

Recent fears of major declines among insects have sent researchers scrambling for data on how they are actually doing.

"So far, such data are only available for a few insect groups and for selected regions. To improve on the status quo, we need urgent assessments of all types of insects in all parts of the world," says Roel van Klink, senior researcher at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) and the lead editor of the special issue.

Given how numerous insects are and how hard it is to tell them apart, obtaining complete information on insect trends has remained a tall order. Now, technological breakthroughs are paving the way for global insect surveys.

Thanks to technological breakthroughs, we can now use all kinds of different properties of insects to track them. For instance, many insects make sounds, which are characteristic of their species. Using cheap devices spread across the environment, we may record these sounds and then assign them to the insects that produced them.

As an alternative, we may attract insects to light, then photograph them and identify the images. Using radar or even laser beams , we may sense insects remotely and identify them based on their size and their wingbeats. Finally, we may extract DNA from insects—or from their traces in the environment, including water or air—and use the sequence of their genes to record and identify them.

"These novel methods have enormous potential to close the vast data gaps we have for insects. They can give us new, more, and better data at lower costs in part due to the semi- or fully autonomous data collection. Novel technologies also typically avoid killing insects," says Toke Thomas Høye, Professor of Ecology at the Department of Ecoscience, Aarhus University, Denmark.

Most importantly, the new methods reduce our dependence on experts since the people who can tell insects apart are few and overburdened with work. Rather than using their valuable expertise on each individual sample of insects, they can teach computers to do the routine work—then focus on the tasks for which their expertise is truly needed.

What adds to the need for automated processing of insect species is the fact that for most insects, there is no one who knows them. An estimated four out of five insect species are still unknown to science and thus even lack names. To characterize them all will take over a thousand years if we continue by traditional methods.

"Now, computer-based methods and artificial intelligence can massively speed up the task of describing life on Earth. By teaching computers how to separate insects, we can make sense of billions of images, millions of sound recordings , and trillions of DNA sequences," says Tomas Roslin, Professor of Insect Ecology at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU).

"Together, these technical advances will revolutionize our knowledge about insects. They make surveys of all types of insects feasible. While they have so far been developed in isolation from each other, our special issue is the start of their integration. By combining them, we will gain unprecedented insights into insects across the world," says Dr. Silke Bauer from the Swiss Federal Research Institute (WSL).

"However, to allow global insights and equality, we need to make sure that both the technologies themselves and the data generated become accessible to everyone."

The paper introducing the theme issue is published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , and the corresponding papers can be found here .

Journal information: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B

Provided by Aarhus University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Researchers establish commercially viable process for manufacturing with promising new class of metals

33 minutes ago

Chimps shown to learn and improve tool-using skills even as adults

Advanced experimental setup expands the hunt for hidden dark matter particles

2 hours ago

New research confirms that Beethoven had lead poisoning—but it didn't kill him

How NASA's Roman mission will hunt for primordial black holes

Geologists reveal mysterious and diverse volcanism in lunar Apollo Basin, Chang'e-6 landing site

3 hours ago

Using algorithms to decode the complex phonetic alphabet of sperm whales

Researchers 'unzip' 2D materials with lasers

How a 'conductor' makes sense of chaos in early mouse embryos

4 hours ago

Decoding development: mRNA's role in embryo formation

Relevant physicsforums posts, the cass report (uk).

May 1, 2024

Is 5 milliamps at 240 volts dangerous?

Apr 29, 2024

Major Evolution in Action

Apr 22, 2024

If theres a 15% probability each month of getting a woman pregnant...

Apr 19, 2024

Can four legged animals drink from beneath their feet?

Apr 15, 2024

Mold in Plastic Water Bottles? What does it eat?

Apr 14, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Global study shows a third more insects come out after dark

Apr 27, 2024

Insect researcher: Non-destructive methods are needed

Oct 18, 2023

Insect evolution patterns confirmed using new imaging technique

Jun 5, 2023

While some insects are declining, others might be thriving

Feb 22, 2022

European insects spread across the world. Was it because settlers carried plants?

Jan 10, 2024

Bacteria are vital for the diversity and survival of insects, shows new study

May 29, 2023

Recommended for you

Loss of large herbivores affects interactions between plants and their natural enemies, study shows

5 hours ago

Designing a novel substrate for myogenic differentiation from induced pluripotent stem cells

Why parrots sometimes adopt—or kill—each other's babies

14 hours ago

Microbiome studies help explore treatments for genetic disorders

6 hours ago

Listening to giants: The search for the elusive Antarctic blue whale

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter