logo

Articles

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2023): Teaching practices in times of digital transformation

The impact of digital transformation on academic work

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.8efe18a1
Submitted
10 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

In recent years, the digital transformation of Higher Education (HE) has had a significant impact on educators and teaching practices across the sector. New ways of working have led to teachers experiencing more pressure to develop technical expertise while simultaneously supporting students through a labyrinth of change. This small-scale explorative study investigates educators’ experiences of working and teaching online in a teaching-focused institution through the lens of Leavitt’s Diamond Model (1964). The data collected consists of six semi-structured interviews with teachers working in a teaching-focused university. The study indicates that many participants have experienced a significant increase in workload since the Covid-19 pandemic, with some exhibiting signs of technostress associated with online working (Panisoara et al., 2021). This seemed especially prevalent with more senior academics as policies and digital infrastructure appear to have led to additional administrative burdens. Despite these findings, the research suggests that Information Communication Technology (ICT) may not be the sole cause for this, but rather, it is a symptom of a more complex phenomenon. It has been further suggested that as the HE landscape evolved, little emphasis has been placed on how organisational initiatives influenced the structure, work tasks, technology, and teachers’ experiences. Due to the limited scope of this study, it is unclear if this is an isolated situation within the school or a more extensive sector-wide issue. Nevertheless, Higher Education managers and policymakers may benefit from applying integrated change strategies if they are to better support teachers and adopt a more balanced work environment post Covid-19.

References

  1. Attaran, M., Attaran, S., & Kirkland, D. (2020). Technology and organizational change: harnessing the power of digital workplace. In Handbook of research on social and organizational dynamics in the digital era (pp. 383-408). IGI Global.
  2. Andrews, R., Boyne, G., & Mostafa, A. M. S. (2017). When bureaucracy matters for organizational performance: Exploring the benefits of administrative intensity in big and complex organizations. Public Administration, 95(1), 115-139.
  3. Al-Fudail, M., & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating teacher stress when using technology. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1103-1110.
  4. Berge, Z. L. (2008). Changing instructor’s roles in virtual worlds. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 407-414.
  5. Blumberg, M., Cater-Steel, A., Rajaeian, M. M., & Soar, J. (2019). Effective organisational change to achieve successful ITIL implementation: Lessons learned from a multiple case study of large Australian firms. Journal of Enterprise Information Management.
  6. Bobbitt Jr, H. R., & Behling, O. C. (1981). Organizational behavior: A review of the literature. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(1), 29-44.
  7. Draft, R.L. (2013). Organization Theory and Design. St. Paul: West Publishing.
  8. Donner, E. K. (2022). Research data management systems and the organization of universities and research institutes: A systematic literature review. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 09610006211070282.
  9. Drever, E. (1995). Using Semi-Structured Interviews in Small-Scale Research. A Teacher’s Guide.
  10. El Sawy, O. (2001), Redesigning Enterprise Processes for e-Business. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
  11. Farquharson, L., Sinha, T., & Clarke, S. (2018). Researching organisational change in higher education: A holistic tripartite approach. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 16(3), 150-161.
  12. Gong, Y., Yang, J., & Shi, X. (2020). Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital transformation in government: Analysis of flexibility and enterprise architecture. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101487.
  13. Hamburg, I. (2019). Implementation of a digital workplace strategy to drive behavior change and improve competencies. Strategy and Behaviors in the Digital Economy.
  14. Hoff, J., & Scheele, C. E. (2014). Theoretical approaches to digital services and digital democracy: The merits of the contextual new medium theory model. Policy & Internet, 6(3), 241-267.
  15. Kirkwood, A. (2014). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education: blended and distance education needs ‘joined-up thinking’ rather than technological determinism. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29(3), 206-221.
  16. Leavitt, H. J. (1964). Managerial psychology: An introduction to individuals, pairs and groups in organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  17. Li, L., & Wang, X. (2021). Technostress inhibitors and creators and their impacts on university teachers’ work performance in higher education. Cognition, Technology & Work, 23(2), 315-330.
  18. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.
  19. Meske, C., & Junglas, I. (2021). Investigating the elicitation of employees’ support towards digital workplace transformation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(11), 1120-1136.
  20. Nograšek, J., & Vintar, M. (2014). E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited?. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 108-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.07.006
  21. Nograšek, J., & Vintar, M. (2011, August). Technology as the key driver of organizational transformation in the eGovernment period: Towards a new formal framework. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 453-464). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  22. Pathak, A., & Intratat, C. (2012). Use of semi-structured interviews to investigate teacher perceptions of student collaboration. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 8(1), 1.
  23. Panke, D. (2018). Research Design and Method Selection: Making good choices in the social sciences. London: Sage.
  24. Penado Abilleira, M., Rodicio-García, M. L., Ríos-de Deus, M. P., & Mosquera-González, M. J. (2021). Technostress in Spanish university teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 496.
  25. Porter, E. J. (1989). The qualitative‐quantitative dualism. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 21(2), 98-102.
  26. Quint, S. (2017). The SEAM four-leaf clover, revisited. The Theory and Practice of Socio-Economic Management, 2(1).
  27. Rabionet, S. E. (2011). How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured interviews: an ongoing and continuous journey. Qualitative Report, 16(2), 563-566.
  28. Rodrigues, L. S. (2017). Challenges of digital transformation in higher education institutions: A brief discussion. In Proceedings of 30th IBIMA Conference.
  29. Roulston, K., & Shelton, S. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 332-342.
  30. Rutkowski, A. F., & Saunders, C. S. (2018). Emotional and Cognitive Overload: The dark side of information technology. Routledge.
  31. Ryttberg, M. (2021). Organising professional support staff at higher education institutions: A multidimensional, continuous balancing act. Tertiary Education and Management., 27(1), 47-58.
  32. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Cifre, E. (2013). The dark side of technologies: Technostress among users of information and communication technologies. International Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 422-436.
  33. Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  34. Smith, C., Norton, B., & Ellis, D. (1992). Leavitt′s diamond and the flatter library: a case study in organizational change. Library Management.
  35. Syvänen, A., Mäkiniemi, J. P., Syrjä, S., Heikkilä-Tammi, K., & Viteli, J. (2016, November). When does the educational use of ICT become a source of technostress for Finnish teachers?. Seminar.net, 12(2).
  36. Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3), 253-258.
  37. Van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M. R., & George, G. (2015). Information, attention, and decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 649-657.
  38. Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2017). Towards a differentiated and domain‐specific view of educational technology: An exploratory study of history teachers’ technology use. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1402-1413.
  39. Wang, K., Shu, Q., & Tu, Q. (2008). Technostress under different organizational environments: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 3002-3013.
  40. Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613-624.