Higher Education Digital Academic Leadership: Perceptions and Practices from Chinese University Leaders

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Positives of the article:

- Chinese higher education perception of Digital Academic Leadership

Negatives:

- It’s another study that uses technology acceptance models to try to explain the impact of the digitalization of organizations

-The leadership perspective, considering studies on digital transformation, was not analyzed

We think that the following recommendations might improve your paper.

Firstly, your work must:

• Review what the literature on digital transformation says about digital leadership.
• Explore and further describe the relationship between UTAUT2 model constructs and DAL constructs

Secondly, and on a more specific level:

• Lack of references regarding what is said in the paragraph between lines 55 and 69, and in line 91
• The formatting of Table 2 should be reviewed
• The constructs explained in Table 3 are not from UTAUT 2 but from UTAUT
• The conclusions drawn from this study would be more evident if they could be summarized in a figure; a Conclusion´s summary through a concept map would enrich this article.

Author Response

Comment 1: Review what the literature on digital transformation says about digital leadership.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion to strengthen the theoretical grounding of our study by reviewing existing literature on how digital transformation has reshaped digital leadership. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially expanded the literature review to address this point. Specifically, we now examine how digital transformation influences leadership functions, behaviors, and models (e.g., Wang et al., 2020; Henderikx & Stoffers, 2022), highlighting the shift from administrative to relational leadership roles in digitally mediated environments.

Moreover, we incorporated insights into how digital academic leadership (DAL) contributes to digital transformation at both the organizational and team levels, drawing on recent research regarding digital strategy, culture, and team collaboration (e.g., Porfírio et al., 2021; Warner & Wäger, 2019; Liao, 2017). These additions are now reflected in the expanded literature review section under the title “The Reciprocal Relationship Between Digital Transformation and Academic Leadership.”

We believe this revised section provides a more comprehensive and theoretically grounded understanding of the bidirectional relationship between digital transformation and academic leadership, aligning the study more closely with current discourse in the field.

Comment 2: Explore and further describe the relationship between UTAUT2 model constructs and DAL constructs./The conclusions drawn from this study would be more evident if they could be summarized in a figure; a Conclusion’s summary through a concept map would enrich this article

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion. In light of the research focus on institutional-level leadership practices rather than individual-level practices, we decided to adopt the original UTAUT model rather than UTAUT2, as constructs such as hedonic motivation, price value, and habit are less relevant in the context of higher education governance.

To enhance the theoretical rigor of our study, we have further explored the relationship between the four core constructs of UTAUT—performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions—and our empirically derived four-dimensional framework of DAL, including strategic foresight, resource coordination, technology awareness, and culture building.

In response, we have further developed an enhanced conceptual map (Figure 1) that goes beyond the four perception-based dimensions of Digital Academic Leadership (DAL) to also incorporate the practical challenges faced by university leaders and the corresponding strategies employed to address them. This integrated model reflects the dual emphasis of our study on both perceptions and practices, and provides a more holistic representation of how institutional digital leadership functions within the broader context of digital transformation.

Specifically, the figure illustrates how the four UTAUT constructs inform leaders’ perceptions of DAL capabilities (strategic foresight, resource coordination, technology awareness, and culture building), which in turn interact with recurring institutional challenges (e.g., fragmented systems, limited strategy alignment) and generate targeted leadership responses (e.g., strengthening cross-unit coordination, cultivating digital culture). This layered mapping aims to clarify the dynamic and recursive nature of digital leadership in practice, aligning with our study’s ecological and systems-based analytical framework.

We believe that this expanded figure enriches the analytical depth of the paper, offering readers a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between leadership cognition, contextual barriers, and adaptive leadership behavior in higher education digital transformation.

A detailed conceptual mapping of these relationships is provided in the revised discussion section and summarized in the newly added conceptual framework figure.

Comment 3: Lack of references regarding what is said in the paragraph between lines 55 and 69, and in line 91

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to the lack of supporting references in the identified sections. In response, we have substantially revised the relevant paragraph (lines 55-69) and the statement in line 91 by incorporating a wide range of up-to-date and thematically aligned literature. These additions aim to provide a stronger empirical and conceptual foundation for our discussion of Digital Academic Leadership (DAL) and the contextual dynamics in Chinese higher education.

Specifically, to support our claim that DAL is emerging as a distinct leadership modality that integrates technical fluency, pedagogical innovation, and adaptive governance, we referenced recent conceptualizations from Ehlers (2020), Avidov-Ungar et al. (2022), and Kawiana (2023), which emphasize the hybrid, multidimensional nature of leadership in digital ecosystems. To reflect the growing scholarly interest in DAL, particularly in higher education contexts, we cited empirical studies such as Chen et al. (2024), Cheng & Zhu (2021), and Zhu & Caliskan (2021). These works illustrate how DAL has been theorized and increasingly adopted as a governance approach in response to digital transformation.

Furthermore, to highlight the research gap in non-Western contexts, especially China, we incorporated studies that critique the dominance of K-12 or Western institutional perspectives in the DAL literature (Cegielski, 2023; Karakose et al., 2021), while also acknowledging that hierarchical structures and collectivist norms in Chinese academia may shape leadership practices differently (Cartier, 2016; Xia et al., 2023). Additionally, to reinforce our claim that existing research has focused mainly on theoretical frameworks and dimensional modeling, we included Loney-Burnett (2022) and Zupancic et al. (2018), who emphasize typology construction over empirical implementation.

Finally, to substantiate our argument in line 91—regarding the lack of systematic exploration of the relationship between digital infrastructure development, policy implementation, and leadership cognition in China’s higher education—we referenced Miao et al. (2023) and Liu et al. (2019), which provide important but limited analyses of China’s digital education reforms and highlight the need for leadership-focused empirical research.

We believe these additions enhance the theoretical rigor and contextual specificity of the manuscript and more accurately situate our study within ongoing academic debates.

Comment 4: The formatting of Table 2 should be reviewed.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion to improve the formatting of Table 2. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully reviewed and updated the table’s structure and layout to enhance its clarity, academic presentation, and visual coherence. Specifically, we removed columns such as “Year Proposed,” “Key Variables,” and “Strengths” that were not directly relevant to the theoretical purpose of this comparison, in order to maintain focus on the conceptual distinctions among TPB, DOI, TAM, UTAUT, and UTAUT2 as they relate to digital academic leadership (DAL).

The revised table now emphasizes the core theoretical logic and applicability of each model, allowing for a more concise and scholarly comparison. Additionally, to address the theoretical decision-making in our study design, we included an explanatory note below the table clarifying why UTAUT2-specific constructs were not adopted:

“Note: Constructs derived from the original UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003); UTAUT2-specific constructs (hedonic motivation, price value, and habit) are not included as they are not applicable to the context of institutional leadership in this study.”

This clarification reflects our analytical focus on organizational and leadership-level phenomena, where hedonic motivation, price value, and habit—although useful in consumer behavior contexts—are less relevant to the governance-oriented, strategic functions performed by university leaders. By tailoring the theoretical framework in this way, we aim to ensure both conceptual precision and contextual relevance in our application of technology acceptance theories.

We hope the updated formatting and the explanatory note now meet the expectations for academic clarity and theoretical transparency.

Comment 5: The constructs explained in Table 3 are not from UTAUT 2 but from UTAUT.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. In light of the research focus on institutional-level leadership practices rather than individual-level practices, we decided to adopt the original UTAUT model rather than UTAUT2, as constructs such as hedonic motivation, price value, and habit (which are of high relevance to consumer behaviors) are less relevant in the context of higher education governance. Upon review, we acknowledge that the constructs outlined in Table 3 align more directly with the original UTAUT model. Accordingly, we have revised the table to accurately reflect its theoretical basis in UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and updated the accompanying discussion throughout the paper to ensure theoretical consistency.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overview

The implementation of modern digital technologies in the educational sphere is a relevant direction in the contemporary digital economy of countries. A significant portion of research focuses on the work of educators in ensuring digitalization, which is only part of a comprehensive task. The authors in their study demonstrate another aspect of this process – the work of the administrative staff and the problems they face. The authors harmoniously combine quantitative and qualitative research to address the set objectives. The methodology of the work meets the requirements for this type of research on one hand, while on the other hand, the obtained conclusions are well-supported by references to secondary literature as well as findings from the qualitative research conducted within the paper.

Comments

1. The authors present a clear and detailed processing and results for the quantitative data from the survey. However, the procedure and methods for dealing with qualitative data from interviews are described rather generally on lines 305-309. Given that a significant portion of the study's conclusions is based on the processing of interview data, it is essential to present this procedure in detail and transparently.
2. Table 9 organizes the problems identified by the authors during the processing of qualitative and quantitative data. It would be beneficial to supplement this table with the percentage ratio of respondents who reported the corresponding issues, in order to distinguish between local problems highlighted by only some respondents and global challenges.

Author Response

Comment 1：The authors present a clear and detailed processing and results for the quantitative data from the survey. However, the procedure and methods for dealing with qualitative data from interviews are described rather generally on lines 305-309. Given that a significant portion of the study's conclusions is based on the processing of interview data, it is essential to present this procedure in detail and transparently.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable observation. In response, we have substantially revised and expanded the Data Collection and Data Analysis sections of the manuscript to provide a more transparent and methodologically rigorous account of how qualitative data from interviews were gathered and analyzed. Specifically, we added details on the development of a standardized interview protocol, the use of semi-structured guides, the transcription and anonymization process, and the role of reflective memos during data collection. In the Data Analysis section, we elaborated on our use of a grounded theory-informed three-stage coding procedure (open, axial, and selective coding), the application of NVivo 12 software, the inter-coder consensus process, and the approach to ensuring data saturation. These additions aim to strengthen the credibility and replicability of our qualitative analysis in line with the reviewer's recommendations.

Furthermore, to enhance the credibility, transparency, and traceability of our qualitative inquiry, we have included the full interview protocol as an appendix. This addition allows readers and reviewers to better evaluate the alignment between research questions, data collection, and analytical outcomes, thereby strengthening the overall trustworthiness and rigor of the qualitative component of the study.

Comment 2：Table 9 organizes the problems identified by the authors during the processing of qualitative and quantitative data. It would be beneficial to supplement this table with the percentage ratio of respondents who reported the corresponding issues, in order to distinguish between local problems highlighted by only some respondents and global challenges.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this insightful recommendation. While our qualitative data do not allow for precise quantification, we have addressed this concern by categorizing the frequency of each reported challenge into High, Medium, or Low, based on the number of times the theme appeared across interview transcripts and open-ended survey responses. This categorization enables a clearer differentiation between widespread and more localized issues without compromising the integrity of qualitative analysis.