Next Article in Journal
Broadening Participation in Computing Through Cultivating Teacher Professional Growth: Stories from Teachers of Color
Previous Article in Journal
Developing Prosocial Leadership in Primary School Students: Service-Learning and Older Adults in Physical Education
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/educsci15070846
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Digital Academic Leadership in Higher Education Institutions: A Bibliometric Review Based on CiteSpace

by
Olaniyi Joshua Olabiyi
1,*,
Carl Jansen van Vuuren
1,
Marieta Du Plessis
1,
Yujie Xue
2 and
Chang Zhu
2
1
Department of Industrial Psychology, University of the Western Cape, Bellville 7535, South Africa
2
Department of Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Brussel, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(7), 846; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070846
Submission received: 31 May 2025 / Revised: 27 June 2025 / Accepted: 1 July 2025 / Published: 2 July 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The continuous evolution of technology compels higher education leaders to adapt to VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) and BANI (brittle, anxious, non-linear, and incomprehensible) environments through innovative strategies that ensure institutional relevance. While VUCA emphasizes the challenges posed by rapid change and uncertain decision-making, BANI underscores the fragility of systems, heightened anxiety, unpredictable causality, and the collapse of established patterns. Navigating these complexities requires agility, resilience, and visionary leadership to ensure that institutions remain adaptable and future ready. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of digital academic leadership in higher education transformation, examining empirical studies, reviews, book chapters, and proceeding papers published from 2014 to 2024 (11-year period) in the Web of Science—Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). Using CiteSpace software (version 6.3. R1-64 bit), we analyzed 5837 documents, identifying 24 key publications that formed a network of 90 nodes and 256 links. The reduction to 24 publications occurred as part of a structured bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace, which employs algorithmic thresholds to identify the most influential and structurally significant publications within a large corpus. These 24 documents form the core co-citation network, which serves as a conceptual backbone for further thematic interpretation. This was the result of a multi-step refinement process using CiteSpace’s default thresholds and clustering algorithms to detect the most influential nodes based on centrality, citation burst, and network clustering. Our findings reveal six primary research clusters: “Enhancing Academic Performance”, “Digital Leadership Scale Adaptation”, “Construction Industry”, “Innovative Work Behavior”, “Development Business Strategy”, and “Education.” The analysis demonstrates a significant increase in publications over the decade, with the highest concentration in 2024, reflecting growing scholarly interest in this field. Keywords analysis shows “digital leadership”, “digital transformation”, “performance”, and “innovation” as dominant terms, highlighting the field’s evolution from technology-focused approaches to holistic leadership frameworks. Geographical analysis reveals significant contributions from Pakistan, Ireland, and India, indicating valuable insights emerging from diverse global contexts. These findings suggest that effective digital academic leadership requires not only technical competencies but also transformational capabilities, communication skills, and innovation management to enhance student outcomes and institutional performance in an increasingly digitalized educational landscape.

1. Introduction

In an era characterized by rapid technological advancements and digital transformations, the concept of digital leadership has gained prominence, particularly within the context of higher education. Digital leadership encompasses the skills, attitudes, and strategies required by academic leaders to effectively navigate, network, collaborate, negotiate, build trust, and communicate using different platforms to various audiences, empowering all stakeholders (Jansen van Vuuren et al., 2021) while harnessing the potential of technology in academic settings.
The growing use of technology by academic leaders in tertiary institutions, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has led to the widespread incorporation of technology to improve academic development globally (Jameson et al., 2022). The current stage of the 4th Industrial Revolution, recognized as Industry 4.0, has initiated a phase of digitalization and digital transformation with more significant changes than previously observed (Lu, 2017, as cited in Cheng et al., 2024). Higher education institutions (HEIs) are experiencing broad impacts from these technological advancements, compelling institutions to address digital transitions across diverse domains (Benavides et al., 2020).
In this context, leveraging the advantages presented by Industry 4.0 becomes crucial, particularly in preparing students for the contemporary labor market. Effective leadership strategies, modern competencies, knowledge, and a supportive work environment are essential for proficient leadership within the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) and brittle, anxious, non-linear, and incomprehensible (BANI) environments that characterize today’s educational landscape.
Scholars have extensively explored the intricacies of digital leadership within higher education. Bates (2015) highlighted the importance of embracing technology not as an add-on but as an integral part of institutional strategies. Keengwe and Anyanwu (2017) emphasized the need for digital leaders to foster a culture of innovation and continuous learning among faculty and staff. Arnold and Paulus (2010) investigated how digital leaders can effectively integrate online collaborative tools to enhance communication and knowledge sharing among academic communities.
The concept of digital leadership takes on distinct dimensions in different global contexts. In developing nations, including South Africa, where some of the authors reside, higher education institutions face unique challenges stemming from historical disparities and socioeconomic factors. The digital divide is not limited to South Africa but is experienced in many developing nations (Nyahodza & Higgs, 2017). Wild et al. (2019) examined the role of digital leaders in driving inclusivity by ensuring equitable access to digital resources among diverse student populations. Govender and Jugernath (2017) highlighted the significance of digital leadership in bridging the digital divide and advancing digital literacy skills, particularly in underserved communities.
Despite the growing body of literature on digital leadership in higher education, there remains a notable gap in synthesizing and mapping the intellectual landscape of this field, particularly regarding its evolution, key thematic clusters, and geographical distribution of knowledge production. While previous studies have examined specific aspects of digital academic leadership, a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of publication patterns, influential contributors, and emerging research fronts has been lacking. This study addresses this gap by employing advanced bibliometric techniques to analyze the structural and temporal dimensions of digital academic leadership research over the eleven years (2014–2024). By identifying hotspot areas, mapping collaboration networks, and revealing developmental trends, this research provides not only a systematic overview of the current state of knowledge but also offers strategic insights for institutions navigating digital transformation. Moreover, this study’s inclusion of contributions from diverse global contexts enriches our understanding of digital leadership beyond traditionally dominant Western perspectives, thus broadening the conceptual and practical applications of digital leadership frameworks in varied educational settings.
Research Questions
i.
What are the hotspot areas of digital academic leadership in higher education institutions?
ii.
What has been published on the topic of digital academic leadership, focusing on authors, institutions, and countries?
iii.
What are the development trends of digital academic leadership within the context of digital transformation in higher education institutions?

2. Literature Review

The advent of Industry 4.0, distinguished by remarkable technological innovations, has instigated widespread digitalization and transformation initiatives across diverse sectors, notably including higher education institutions (Lu, 2017). A substantial portion of the scholarly discourse accentuates the advantageous outcomes of digital transformation, elucidating its capacity to catalyze innovation and enhance operational efficiency (Goh & Arenas, 2020; Sambamurthy et al., 2003). Nonetheless, if not meticulously administered, this transformation may engender considerable risks, particularly for higher education institutions. Within this framework, leadership emerges as an essential component in the adept management of digital transitions.

2.1. Conceptual Foundations of Digital Leadership

The fundamental constructs of digital leadership have evolved through distinct theoretical contributions within academic literature. L. Brown (2014) provided a foundational definition, articulating digital leadership as encompassing individuals such as educators, administrators, and technology leaders who recognize and harness the potential of technology to enrich student experiences across various educational levels. Building upon this foundation, Sheninger (2019) advanced the concept by characterizing digital leadership as a systematic approach in which leaders actively utilize technology to influence educational outcomes, emphasizing the strategic and purposeful nature of digital integration.
The terminological landscape presents notable complexity, as digital leadership often overlaps with concepts like e-leadership, EdTech leadership, ICT leadership, and virtual leadership, which are commonly used interchangeably (C. Brown et al., 2016). This conceptual convergence arises from analogous leadership practices that focus on leveraging digital tools to enhance leadership effectiveness (McGonagill & Doerffer, 2011; Sheninger, 2019). Rather than representing distinct phenomena, these practices are interrelated, sharing fundamental principles while exhibiting contextual emphases.

2.2. Competency Frameworks and Practical Applications

Ahlquist (2016) made a significant contribution by delineating ten competencies pertinent to digital leadership, encompassing establishing direction, influencing others, and initiating sustainable transformation through information accessibility and relationship cultivation. These competencies include mindfulness of evolving digital landscapes, analysis of authentic versus false digital content, awareness and reflection of digital profiles, instituting virtual boundaries, establishing professional and strategic online branding, constructing professional learning networks (PLNs) for collaboration, integrating digital technologies into leadership practices, cyber conflict resolution and stakeholder mediation, digital decision-making strategies to promote citizenship, and utilizing social media for positive civic engagement. The objective of these competencies extends beyond mere technological proficiency to enhance educational institutional culture through strategic technological integration.
Domeny (2017) expanded this conceptual framework by positioning digital leadership as transcending technological application to encompass broader dimensions of higher education culture, including interpersonal interactions and academic achievements. This holistic perspective acknowledges that effective digital leadership must address both technical and human elements of institutional transformation.

2.3. Social and Network Dimensions

The social aspects of digital leadership have received particular attention from several scholars. Couros (2013) accentuated the significance of social media platforms in individual development through digital leadership, emphasizing the relational and communicative dimensions of digital practice. Zhong (2016) complemented this perspective by concentrating on the strategic employment of digital resources to facilitate learning, teaching, and administrative functions, thus bridging individual development with institutional operational needs.
Ahlquist (2016) further proposed six digital leadership practices tailored for higher education, which remain equally relevant for educational leaders across levels. These practices encompass prioritizing student relationships via social media platforms, disseminating expertise within professional learning networks, embracing change in the capacity of a Chief Experiment Officer, establishing conducive digital educational environments, personalizing digital tools through ethical decision-making, and fostering innovation cultures. These practices encourage leaders to embrace calculated risk-taking, advocate for educator development, and maintain visionary orientations toward student learning through digital engagement.

2.4. Strategic and Organizational Perspectives

Contemporary researchers have emphasized the strategic dimensions of digital leadership. Cortellazzo et al. (2019) distinguished digital leaders by their proficiency in recognizing and exploiting connections that confer strategic advantages, highlighting the network-oriented nature of digital leadership effectiveness. This perspective reinforces the critical necessity of effective leadership, particularly within higher education institutions (HEIs).
Antonopoulou et al. (2020) articulated the organizational requirements for digital leadership, emphasizing that leaders in HEIs must possess a nuanced comprehension of digital transformation complexities. This includes the imperative to invest in employee upskilling and implement effective motivational methodologies. Furthermore, these leaders are expected to actively refine pedagogical methodologies, integrating optimal practices that promote enhanced student performance within digital learning frameworks (Orcutt & Dringus, 2017).

2.5. Integration and Future Orientation

Aldawood et al. (2019) provided a synthesized definition of digital leadership as the capacity to establish direction, influence transformation, and cultivate relationships to improve prospective educational outcomes. This leadership paradigm necessitates anticipating changes in the educational environment while ensuring institutions are adequately equipped to meet future digital demands.
The academic literature increasingly highlights the multifaceted responsibilities of digital leaders within higher education contexts. These leaders must navigate the delicate equilibrium between fostering innovation and preserving a coherent institutional vision, while diligently managing change within their institutions and virtual teams. Avolio et al. (2014) highlights the critical importance of digital platforms in creating new networking avenues, which are vital for leaders navigating complex digital environments.
Consequently, digital leadership constitutes a vital component in higher education, providing institutions with the capacity to adapt and flourish in increasingly digitized environments. The promotion of digital leadership among academic leaders is crucial for nurturing innovation and sustaining institutional relevance (Antonopoulou et al., 2020). This leadership paradigm requires continuous evolution and adaptation to meet the dynamic demands of contemporary higher education landscapes.
Given the relatively emergent nature of digital academic leadership investigation, there exists a compelling rationale for undertaking a comprehensive review of the existing literature. Such a review yields a holistic comprehension of the fundamental dimensions of digital leadership in HEIs, thereby contributing to the expanding corpus of knowledge on this pivotal subject. The principal objective of this research is to aggregate and critically evaluate trends and hotspots in digital academic leadership within the higher education domain, providing insights that can inform prospective leadership practices and institutional strategies.

3. Materials and Methods

Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative method for analyzing publications related to a specific theme (Mayr & Scharnhorst, 2015). This method enhances our understanding of the knowledge and intellectual framework that underpins a particular research topic (Shafique, 2013). The analysis enables a systematic evaluation of key bibliometric attributes, focusing on aspects such as keywords, authors, journals, geographical contributions, and potential research trends (Abramo et al., 2011). Through this intellectual process, academic researchers can conduct a longitudinal meta-analysis of a specific domain, investigate its origins and evolution (Hérubel, 1999), as well as predicting future research trends (Chen, 2006). While this study focused on documents indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (SCIE and SSCI), future research could incorporate databases such as Francis & Taylor (F&T), Scopus, and ERIC to diversify and broaden the literature base. Additionally, integrating complementary methodologies such as systematic literature review, content analysis, or meta-synthesis would allow for a deeper contextual exploration of thematic clusters identified through bibliometric analysis. These methods can enrich interpretation by highlighting nuanced perspectives and socio-institutional dimensions that may be underrepresented in co-citation networks.
To answer the research questions, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles on the trend of digital academic leadership in higher education institutions. This review aimed to comprehensively examine the key thematic clusters and research evolution of digital academic leadership research over the past ten years using bibliometric analysis. The bibliometric analysis enabled the examination of publications to identify significant patterns, prominent authors, institutions, countries, and emerging themes within this field (Donthu et al., 2021).
The process included developing search strategies, conducting data extraction, performing bibliometric data analysis, and presenting findings (Clark et al., 2021). This study employed Citespace software, created by Chen Chaomei from Drexel University and the WISE Laboratory at Dalian University of Technology. Citespace, a Java-based application, was used for co-citation network analysis and visualization, emphasizing scientometrics and data visualization (W. Wang & Lu, 2020). It provided two perspectives: focused and time-zone, which helped visualize the structure and distribution of scientific knowledge, also termed “Mapping Knowledge Domain” (Hou & Hu, 2019). The analytical workflow involved data acquisition, processing, parameter selection, visualization, and interpretation, using data sources like Web of Science-Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). The study presented its findings through network visualization and bibliometric indicators, providing an understanding of prevailing trends and the substantial impact of digital academic leadership on driving digital transformation within higher education research.

3.1. Data Source and Search Strategy

Data sourcing was carried out via the electronic database Web of Science within the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) categories. The Web of Science stood as a distinguished, worldwide, widely acknowledged, and dependable academic publication database encompassing numerous scientific disciplines. In order to enhance both the volume and caliber of data accumulated from preceding years, the data retrieval process was configured within the CiteSpace software to encompass the interval from January 2014 to December 2024. A query comprising the terms ((*Digital academic leadership*) OR (*digital leadership*) OR (*electronic academic leadership*)) AND (*higher education institution*) AND (*digital transformation*) produced a total of 5837 pertinent scholarly articles. The subsequent extraction process included the year of publication, titles, authors’ affiliations and countries, abstracts, keywords, citation metrics, and additional bibliographic information from each piece of literature to facilitate the examination of research focal points and developmental trajectories. The selection of SCI and SSCI was deliberate due to their status as the principal collections within the Web of Science. Articles featured in SCI and SSCI exhibited superior quality and standing in comparison to alternative databases or collections like Engineering Index (EI) and Emerging Science Citation Index (ESCI). These databases served as notable scientific information resources for accessing databases and noteworthy publications spanning a variety of knowledge domains (Ifelebuegu et al., 2023), specifically concentrating on digital academic leadership and the evolution of higher education institutions. The specified database facilitated the employment of sophisticated search mechanisms utilizing logical operators that aligned with the criteria established for the bibliometric review delineated in this research (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). Moreover, the application of Citespace software and bibliometric analysis furnished valuable insights to underpin the review, as posited in this study (Z. Wang et al., 2021).

3.2. Data Was Collected Using the Following Search Strategy

  • Select: Web of Science Core Collection: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) as the data source.
  • Topic: ((*Digital academic leadership*) OR (*digital leadership*) OR (*electronic academic leadership*)) AND (*higher education institution*) AND (*digital transformation*).
  • Language: *English*.
  • Period: *2014–2024*.
  • Index date: *2014*present.
  • Document type: *Article* or *review* and *book chapter* and *proceeding paper*.
Bibliometric Analysis Procedure
The analysis procedure involved several steps, as outlined below:
  • Statistical analysis: This analysis examined the temporal distribution of publications in the field of digital academic leadership and categorized these publications. By analyzing statistical characteristics, insights into the knowledge foundation of research on digital academic leadership were gained.
  • Collaboration analysis: This analysis focused on collaboration networks among institutions, regions, and authors, providing a multi-faceted view of the correlations within the field of digital academic leadership.
  • Co-citation analysis: By analyzing co-cited networks among journals, references, and authors, insights into the current state of research evolution in the field of digital academic leadership were obtained.
  • Co-occurrence analysis: Networks of co-occurring keywords were analyzed to identify potential hotspots and future trends in digital academic leadership research.
  • Building a comprehensive knowledge framework: This process helped scholars quickly understand the comprehensive knowledge and logical structure that form the basis of digital academic leadership research from different perspectives.

3.3. Bibliometric Data Analysis

This review utilized bibliometric data analysis, a quantitative approach that explored publications on digital academic leadership within higher education institutions. This method helped recognize noteworthy trends, influential authors, institutions, countries, and emerging topics in this research area (Donthu et al., 2021). It involved performance evaluation metrics and science mapping methods to reveal complex formations in academic literature (Blakeman, 2018). Additionally, bibliometric analysis aimed to quantify the number, growth, and trends of scientific publications on a specific topic (Mao et al., 2018). This study assessed the trends and developments in research publications at the author, institution, and country levels within the scope of digital academic leadership. It used citations per publication, citations per cited publication, h-index, and g-index as extended indicators of research impact. A research information system (RIS) file was extracted from the Web of Science—Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) databases using CiteSpace software. The research also included network analysis to uncover complex relationships between countries, authors, and keywords (L. Wu et al., 2020). CiteSpace (version 6.3. R1-64-bit) was utilized to visualize, analyze, and present bibliometric data regarding co-authorship, co-occurrence, and citations (W. Wang & Lu, 2020). In the context of digital academic leadership research in higher education institutions, the keyword co-occurrence analysis explained critical research topics and thematic foci. Co-authorship analysis proved essential in promoting innovation in research and knowledge exchange between authors, institutions, and countries (Zou et al., 2018). The study aimed to employ bibliometric analysis within the framework of digital academic leadership in higher education institutions to gain a thorough understanding of research trends. This approach facilitated a deeper comprehension of digital academic leadership and its substantial impact on digital transformation across various higher education institutions globally.

3.4. Utilization of CiteSpace for Data Analysis

The principal instrument utilized for the analysis of data in this study was the CiteSpace software (version 6.3. R1-64 bit), a multivariate and dynamic information visualization application conceived by Professor Chen Chaomei at Drexel University, USA (Chen, 2006). This software is explicitly engineered to investigate hotspots and nascent domains within a particular field by scrutinizing high-frequency keywords, emergent terminology, and keyword co-occurrence patterns in scholarly publications. CiteSpace facilitates the identification and forecasting of research trends, historical advancements, and prospective trajectories across various academic disciplines. A cumulative total of 5837 documents from the Web of Science were imported into the CiteSpace system, with the temporal slicing parameter configured from “January 2014 to December 2024”, employing an eleven-year interval period. All remaining parameters were maintained at the default settings prescribed by the software; 24 documents were qualified based on the specific search terms, merged network nodes = 90, links = 256, as per the analyses and the data that were processed to run the analyses.
The visual representations produced by CiteSpace employ nodes and edges, wherein N signifies the aggregate number of network nodes, and E denotes the quantity of connecting edges between these nodes. The size of each node represents the frequency of data references or occurrences, while the connecting edges depict relationships among nodes, with the thickness of these edges reflecting the strength of these associations. For the sake of comprehension, not all elements might be comprehensively shown in the graphic (Y. Wu et al., 2019).
Cluster quality is evaluated through the utilization of modularity (Q) and silhouette scores (S). The modularity index Q, which spans from 0 to 1, assesses the efficacy of clustering; a Q value exceeding 0.3 signifies a substantial clustering structure. Silhouette index S, where S ≥ 0.5, indicates acceptable clustering outcomes, and values that approach 1 suggest enhanced homogeneity within the network. Also, the measurement of network closeness is performed to gauge the number of interactions outlined in the dataset (Liu et al., 2018).

3.5. Document Selection and Network Construction

The apparent reduction from 5837 to 24 key documents was the result of co-citation network construction, guided by CiteSpace’s established parameters:
  • Time slicing: 2014–2024, with 1 year per slice.
  • Node type: Reference.
  • Selection criteria per slice 10: Top 50 documents using g-index (k = 24).
  • Link reduction: Pathfinder.
  • Pruning: None (to preserve structure for interpretation).
These settings represent CiteSpace’s default and empirically supported parameters for identifying the most influential documents in each time slice based on citation frequency and structural significance.
The resulting co-citation network comprised 90 nodes and 257 links, but the core intellectual structure was defined by 24 documents with the highest co-citation counts and centrality scores. These documents formed the thematic backbone of the field and were further analyzed for conceptual content and trends.

3.6. Justification for Using CiteSpace with a Small Set

While the final set of 24 documents may appear limited, it is important to clarify that this is not the total dataset, but the core subset identified through CiteSpace’s algorithmic prioritization. These 24 documents form the core co-citation network, which serves as a conceptual backbone for further thematic interpretation. The tool was not used for qualitative synthesis alone but for mapping the conceptual structure and highlighting pivotal contributions within a much larger scholarly landscape. CiteSpace’s ability to model structural influence, interdisciplinary diffusion, and temporal citation dynamics justifies its use even when the final network is condensed.
To complement this quantitative phase, we also conducted a qualitative interpretive analysis of the 24 core documents to explore the dominant themes and theoretical underpinnings related to digital academic leadership. This hybrid approach, combining bibliometric rigor with qualitative insight, strengthens the interpretive validity of the study.
While CiteSpace is most commonly used for analyzing large bibliometric datasets, it remains a valuable tool even when the refined corpus is small, for several reasons:

3.6.1. Identification of Intellectual Structure and Key Trends

CiteSpace provides visualizations and metrics (e.g., betweenness centrality, citation bursts) that can help identify the intellectual backbone of a field—even from a smaller, refined corpus. In this context, the 24 documents represent the most influential or structurally central works, allowing us to map thematic trends and scholarly turning points.

3.6.2. Rigorous and Transparent Selection

The use of CiteSpace ensures replicability and methodological transparency. The process by which these 24 documents were selected is algorithmically traceable, reducing researcher bias that may accompany purely qualitative selection.

3.7. Potential Impact of Document Selection on Trends

While CiteSpace provides a robust algorithmic selection of influential documents, the co-citation approach may favor established, frequently cited works. While the reduction from 5837 to 24 core documents represents a significant filtering, this methodological approach captures the most structurally significant publications based on co-citation analysis. However, this selection may potentially underrepresent emerging themes that have not yet achieved high citation counts, regional or linguistic variations in digital leadership approaches, interdisciplinary perspectives from fields with different citation patterns, and recent publications that have not had sufficient time to accumulate citations.
The 24-core document core network, while representing the intellectual backbone of the field, should be interpreted as the most structurally central rather than comprehensively representative of all digital leadership research. The excluded 5813 documents, while not forming the core intellectual structure, may contain valuable insights into specialized applications, case studies, and context-specific implementations of digital leadership. Future research should consider complementary approaches such as content analysis or systematic reviews to capture these broader perspectives.

4. Results of Bibliometric Analyses Using CiteSpace for Digital Academic Leadership

Following the methodology outlined earlier, 24 documents qualified for analysis from the initial dataset. The reduction to 24 publications occurred as part of a structured bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace, which employs algorithmic thresholds to identify the most influential and structurally significant publications within a large corpus. These 24 documents form the core co-citation network, which serves as a conceptual backbone for further thematic interpretation. This was the result of a multi-step refinement process using CiteSpace’s default thresholds and clustering algorithms to detect the most influential nodes based on centrality, citation burst, and network clustering. This selection resulted in a merged network structure with 90 nodes and 256 links.

4.1. Contextual Interpretation of Document Selection and Network Structure

Each node represents a distinct research entity (author, institution, or keyword), while the links indicate relationships between these entities. The relatively high ratio of links to nodes (approximately 2.84:1) suggests a well-connected intellectual landscape with significant cross-fertilization of ideas, despite the specialized nature of the field.
Further, the structural properties of the network, such as betweenness centrality and modularity, provide additional layers of analysis. High betweenness centrality values among specific nodes indicate their role as pivotal connectors in the scholarly discourse, facilitating knowledge integration across different research clusters. Similarly, modularity analysis allows for the identification of distinct thematic clusters, highlighting specialized research areas and their relative prominence. Overall, the rigorous selection of 24 documents, coupled with their network characterization in CiteSpace, provides a robust analytical foundation for understanding the scholarly impact and interconnections within the field. Future analyses can further dissect these relationships to identify emerging trends, influential contributors, and potential research gaps.

4.2. Temporal Distribution of Publications

The number of publications has shown a general increase in recent years, as seen in Figure 1. The highest recorded count was in 2024, with 1175 publications, rising from 1067 in 2023 and 991 in 2022. The publication count remained strong in 2021 at 719 and in 2020 at 507.
Figure 1 represents the trend of publication between 2014 to 2024. This upward trajectory in publication volume reflects the growing academic interest in digital academic leadership, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic. The sharp increase from 507 publications in 2020 to 719 in 2021 (a 42% increase) likely represents the academic response to the forced digital transformation that educational institutions worldwide experienced during pandemic lockdowns. The continued growth through 2022–2024 suggests that this was not merely a temporary research interest but represents a fundamental shift in higher education leadership priorities. The consistently high publication counts in recent years indicate that digital academic leadership has transitioned from a niche research area to a mainstream focus in higher education scholarship.
Disciplinary Distribution of Research
The bar chart in Figure 2 represents the distribution of publications across various academic disciplines. The most prominent fields are Management and Education, each exceeding 800 publications. This dual concentration highlights the cross-disciplinary nature of the topic, bridging organizational leadership theories with educational practice. The strong representation from Business (approximately 500 publications) further emphasizes the influence of corporate leadership models on educational leadership conceptualizations.
Figure 2 represents the bar chart visualization of the top 25 research categories for digital academic leadership. The substantial presence of Health Care Sciences, Information Science, and Computer Science (each with approximately 300 publications) demonstrates how digital leadership extends beyond traditional educational boundaries into technical and health care domains. This multidisciplinary engagement suggests that digital academic leadership is being conceptualized as a complex phenomenon requiring diverse theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches.
The moderate representation from Environmental Sciences, Medical Informatics, and Social Sciences indicates emerging research frontiers where digital leadership principles are applied to specialized educational contexts. The lower representation from Public Administration, Physics Applied, and Materials Science Multidisciplinary suggests potential areas for future research expansion, particularly in understanding how digital leadership intersects with public policy and technical disciplines.
Intellectual Structure and Research Clusters
The visualization (Figure 3) shows six distinct clusters, with the largest cluster labeled as “#0” (Enhancing Academic Performance; 19 members, silhouette value: 0.732), which demonstrates that improving educational outcomes remains the primary motivation for digital leadership research. The high silhouette value indicates strong thematic coherence within this cluster. Borah et al.’s (2022) influential work connecting digital leadership to digital transformation suggests that researchers increasingly view leadership as a critical mediating factor between technological implementation and educational improvement.
The Digital Leadership Scale Adaptation (#1) cluster, with 14 members (silhouette value: 0.777), represents a methodological maturation in the field, reflecting a shift from conceptual development to empirical measurement. Its major citing article is Karakose et al. (2022), with notable references to Zeike et al. (2019), Cortellazzo et al. (2019), and Snyder (2019). This transition indicates that digital academic leadership research is moving beyond theoretical propositions to develop validated instruments for assessing leadership competencies in digital contexts. The high silhouette value suggests a strong consensus regarding measurement approaches.
The Construction Industry (#2) cluster (11 members, silhouette value: 0.893) focuses on digital leadership in business strategy within the construction sector, with Tuerk-Stonberg and Bardzik (2023) as its primary citing article and significant citations from Kane et al. (2019), Borah et al. (2022), and Hamzah et al. (2021). This cross-sectoral influence suggests that higher education is increasingly drawing on industry practices to inform digital leadership approaches. The exceptionally high silhouette value indicates that this represents a distinct and coherent research strand. This cluster captures the scholarly discourse surrounding the conceptual and theoretical development of digital leadership within academic settings. It reflects how leadership models are not merely adopted but actively constructed through academic inquiry, institutional narratives, and the negotiation of digital identities. The cluster thus signifies the interpretive processes by which digital academic leadership is legitimized, contested, and embedded in higher education literature. By situating this cluster within broader conversations on leadership theory and institutional change, we strengthen its thematic coherence and underscore its importance to the evolving field. The prominence of the “construction” cluster, while noteworthy, appears to capture discursive frameworks through which digital leadership identities and models are constructed in the literature. Understanding this epistemological foundation is critical, as it influences how digital leadership is conceptualized, institutionalized, and operationalized across varying educational contexts.
The Innovative Work Behavior (#3) cluster (11 members, silhouette value: 0.862) examines digital leadership’s influence on workplace innovation, with Lin et al. (2024) as its major citing work and key references to Mihajlo et al. (2019), Erhan et al. (2022), and Benitez et al. (2022). This cluster’s emergence aligns with the broader trend in higher education toward fostering innovative pedagogical and organizational practices in response to digital disruption.
The Development Business Strategy (#4) cluster (nine members, silhouette value: 0.821) closely aligns with Cluster #1, suggesting a convergence between strategic planning and leadership assessment in digital contexts. This convergence reflects an increasingly sophisticated understanding of how leadership competencies translate into strategic outcomes.
Lastly, Education (#5) (eight members, silhouette value: 0.918) focuses on digital leadership in educational settings, emphasizing knowledge sharing and emotional intelligence. This demonstrates that researchers recognize the importance of social and emotional dimensions in digital leadership, countering purely technical approaches to digital transformation.
Authorship and Collaboration Patterns
Figure 4 represents keywords visualization for digital leadership. The Development (0) cluster is the largest, consisting of six members with a silhouette value of 1. It is primarily focused on the evolution and development of digital leadership. The authorship analysis reveals a research field characterized by several influential contributors, with Zulu, Sambo Lyson emerging as particularly impactful, with the highest citation count (2) (see Table 1). The concentration of productive authors in Cluster #0 (Development) suggests that this represents a cohesive research community with shared theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches.
The relatively modest citation counts, even for top-ranked authors (ranging from 1 to 2), indicate that the field remains in a developmental stage, without dominant theoretical paradigms or methodological approaches. This suggests an opportunity for emerging scholars to make significant contributions to shaping the field’s trajectory. The similar degree measures (4–5) across top-ranked authors indicate a relatively flat collaboration structure without highly centralized research networks. This distributive collaborative pattern may facilitate diverse perspectives but could potentially limit the development of comprehensive theoretical frameworks that typically emerge from more centralized research communities.
Keyword Network Analysis and Co-Occurring Keywords
Figure 5 represents the keywords visualization for digital academic leadership in higher education. (Node sizes correspond to keyword frequency, with larger nodes representing more frequently occurring terms. Link thickness indicates the strength of co-occurrence relationships between keywords. Colors represent different thematic clusters, helping to identify conceptual groupings within the field. Central positioning indicates higher betweenness centrality, suggesting keywords that bridge different research areas).
Table 2 represents the Top 20 high-frequency keywords. Table 3 also represents the top 10 higher educational institutions. Table 4 further represents the top 8 countries in terms of the number of articles published. The keyword analysis provides critical insights into the conceptual foundation of digital academic leadership research. The dominant position of “digital leadership” (20 citations, degree: 62) demonstrates that this concept serves as the central organizing principle for the research field. Its high centrality measure (1.20) further confirms its position as the intellectual core around which other concepts are organized.
The strong presence of “digital transformation” (nine citations, degree: 30) indicates that leadership is primarily conceptualized within the context of broader institutional change processes. This contextual framing suggests that researchers view leadership not as an isolated practice but as embedded within systemic organizational transformation.
The prominence of “performance” and “innovation” (five citations each) reflects the outcome-oriented nature of digital leadership research, with emphasis on both operational effectiveness and creative disruption. This dual focus suggests tension between efficiency-driven and innovation-driven approaches to digital leadership.
The emergence of “dynamic capability” (three citations, degree: 17) highlights the increasing influence of strategic management concepts in educational leadership research. This cross-disciplinary borrowing indicates growing recognition that digital leadership requires adaptive organizational capabilities beyond individual leadership competencies.
The relatively high position of “transformational leadership” (four citations, degree: 16) suggests that researchers are drawing on established leadership theories to conceptualize digital leadership, rather than treating it as an entirely novel construct. This theoretical continuity provides conceptual grounding for the emerging field.
The presence of “communication” with high centrality (0.16), despite moderate citation counts (3), indicates its role as a bridging concept connecting different research streams. This suggests that communication processes are increasingly recognized as critical mediating factors in digital leadership effectiveness.
Institutional Contributions and International Collaboration
Collaborating Countries and Co-Country Analysis
The institutional analysis (presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7) reveals a diverse landscape of contributing organizations, with the National University of Sciences and Technology—Pakistan emerging as particularly influential (citation count: 2, degree: 6, centrality: 0.04). The presence of institutions from Pakistan, Ireland, India, and other countries indicates a globally distributed research community rather than concentration in traditional Western academic centers.
The relatively modest citation counts, even for leading institutions (1–2), suggest that the field lacks dominant institutional actors, potentially allowing for more diverse perspectives and approaches. This distributed pattern of institutional contributions may facilitate context-specific applications of digital leadership principles across varied educational systems.
The international collaboration analysis reveals Pakistan and Ireland as particularly active research hubs (citation counts: 3 each), with Pakistan demonstrating the highest degree of international collaboration (degree: 9) and network centrality (0.31). This positions Pakistan as an important bridge in the global research network. The strong presence of India (citation count: 2, degree: 6, centrality: 0.13) further emphasizes the significant contributions from emerging economies to this research domain.
The international collaboration patterns suggest that digital academic leadership research is increasingly characterized by South–South and South–North knowledge exchange, rather than the traditional North–South knowledge transfer model. This collaborative pattern enriches the field by incorporating diverse cultural and institutional perspectives on leadership in digital educational contexts.

5. Discussion

This bibliometric analysis reveals significant trends in digital academic leadership research within higher education institutions, addressing key development trajectories, thematic priorities, and emerging research directions.

5.1. Evolving Landscape of Digital Academic Leadership

Our analysis identifies a three-phase developmental trajectory: conceptual foundation, practical expansion, and interdisciplinary integration. This mirrors broader digital transformation patterns, with a marked acceleration during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021), supporting Vial’s (2019) assertion that external disruptions can catalyze rapid digital innovation. The most recent phase, characterized by increasing focus on leadership development and assessment, reflects what Sheninger (2019) describes as the institutionalization of digital leadership, where it becomes embedded in the structural fabric of educational institutions.
The surge in publications from 85 in 2014 to 1175 in 2024 underscores the rising strategic importance of digital leadership. This growth aligns with the widespread implementation of digital transformation initiatives, particularly in response to the challenges of the pandemic (Jameson et al., 2022). These trends indicate that digital academic leadership has transitioned from a peripheral topic to a central concern in higher education governance.
Keyword analysis reveals a shift from technology-centric discourse to holistic leadership frameworks, as reflected in the prominence of terms such as digital leadership, performance, innovation, dynamic capability, and transformational leadership. This points to an evolving understanding of digital leadership as a multidimensional construct encompassing vision, adaptability, and strategic influence, not merely technical expertise.

5.2. Thematic Clustering and Research Priorities

Six primary thematic clusters were identified. Among them, Enhancing Academic Performance emerged as the dominant focus, highlighting the field’s persistent concern with improving student outcomes through leadership-driven digital transformation. Borah et al.’s (2022) work exemplifies the integration of leadership strategy with institutional change processes.
Another notable cluster, Digital Leadership Scale Adaptation, led by Karakose et al.’s (2022) research, illustrates a growing interest in empirically measuring leadership competencies. This transition from conceptual exploration to operationalization signals a maturing field increasingly committed to evidence-based practice.
The emergence of Innovative Work Behavior as a cluster highlights digital leadership’s role in fostering adaptability and innovation, core requirements in dynamic academic environments. The co-occurrence of business concepts like dynamic capability within educational contexts suggests a productive cross-pollination between corporate and academic leadership literature.

5.3. Geographical and Institutional Contributions

A notable finding is the geographical diversity of high-impact contributions. Institutions from Pakistan, Ireland, and India prominently feature in citation rankings, challenging the dominance of traditional Western academic centers. This global spread brings much-needed diversity to the field, introducing varied cultural and educational perspectives.
The institutional profile reveals a blend of technology-focused universities and management schools, reflecting a multidisciplinary orientation. This is especially important given that digital leadership in higher education spans technological, organizational, pedagogical, and cultural domains.
Recent studies from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have begun to shed light on the region’s unique approaches to digital academic leadership, particularly in the context of higher education’s digital transformation.
In Romania, a bibliometric analysis of educational research revealed a growing emphasis on digital transformation in education, with clusters focusing on e-learning, blended learning, and the integration of advanced technologies such as virtual and augmented reality (Cretu & Grosseck, 2025). This indicates a shift towards embracing digital tools to enhance teaching and learning processes.
Similarly, a comparative study involving universities from Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Serbia highlighted the challenges faced by education scholars in the digital environment. The study noted that while there is a low participation in global science due to language and local context barriers, there is an increasing use of open-access platforms and academic social media to disseminate research (Rębisz & Lungulov, 2022). This trend underscores the importance of digital leadership in promoting visibility and impact in the digital age.
In Croatia, a case study emphasized the role of digital leadership and maturity as key factors in successful digital transformation. The study defined digital leadership as a process of social influence mediated by technology, highlighting the need for leaders to anticipate technological developments and communicate them effectively within their organizations (Kokot et al., 2023).
Furthermore, the concept of the “knowledge triangle” linking education, research, and innovation has been explored in the context of CEE universities. This model promotes multidirectional knowledge flows, enhancing the dynamics of economic growth and emphasizing the role of universities in fostering creativity and innovation (Marczewska et al., 2024).
These studies collectively suggest that while CEE countries face unique challenges in digital academic leadership, they are also developing innovative strategies to navigate the digital transformation of higher education. Future research should continue to explore these regional developments to provide a more comprehensive understanding of global trends in digital academic leadership.

5.4. Implications for Research and Practice

The findings offer several actionable insights for both researchers and academic leaders. First, the field’s emphasis on leadership competencies supports the need for professional development that integrates both technical and relational skills—such as strategic thinking, communication, and change management.
Second, the prominence of performance as a keyword signals the importance of developing multidimensional evaluation frameworks to assess the outcomes of digital leadership initiatives, balancing quantitative metrics with qualitative indicators of institutional transformation.
Third, the emphasis on dynamic capability highlights the demand for adaptive leadership models capable of navigating complexity and volatility, especially in VUCA and BANI environments.
Lastly, the geographic diversity in the literature suggests opportunities for cross-cultural exchange and mutual learning while also emphasizing the importance of tailoring leadership strategies to local institutions and cultural contexts.

6. Limitations and Future Research

While this study offers a comprehensive bibliometric overview of digital academic leadership in higher education, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the reliance on CiteSpace and bibliometric methods, though effective for identifying large-scale patterns and structural relationships, inherently limits the depth of interpretation. The exclusion of 5813 out of 5837 initial documents, due to strict search parameters focused specifically on digital academia, may have resulted in the omission of relevant studies that address digital leadership more broadly or indirectly. Additionally, discrepancies observed between visual network representations and corresponding numerical outputs suggest that bibliometric findings require careful interpretation and, where possible, validation through complementary methods. Future research could integrate qualitative approaches such as content analysis or meta-synthesis to provide deeper insights into the contextual and conceptual dimensions that may be underrepresented in quantitative mapping.
Building on the current findings, this study also identifies several promising directions for future research. Longitudinal studies are needed to trace the evolution and long-term impacts of digital academic leadership practices, particularly as digital technologies continue to transform higher education. Comparative research examining contextual variations across institutional types, sizes, and cultural settings would further enrich understanding, especially given the increasing geographical diversity in publication output. Moreover, empirical investigations evaluating leadership development interventions, such as training programs or mentorship models, could offer evidence-based insights into how digital leadership competencies are cultivated. Another important avenue lies in exploring the intersection between digital leadership and pedagogical innovation, examining how leadership practices shape teaching and learning transformations.
Finally, future research should attend more closely to the ethical dimensions of digital leadership, including issues of equity, data privacy, and academic integrity, which are becoming increasingly salient in digitally mediated educational environments.

7. Conclusions

This bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive mapping of the intellectual landscape of digital academic leadership in higher education, revealing its evolution from a predominantly technology-focused concern to a multifaceted strategic imperative. The findings underscore the critical role of digital leadership in navigating the complex interplay of technology, pedagogy, and institutional strategy in contemporary higher education environments. As educational institutions continue to grapple with technological disruption and the demands of preparing students for an increasingly digital world, the insights from this analysis offer valuable guidance for both research and practice. By building on the identified trends and addressing the emerging research gaps, scholars and practitioners can contribute to the development of more effective, contextually appropriate, and ethically grounded approaches to digital academic leadership.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.J.O., C.J.v.V. and M.D.P.; methodology, O.J.O., C.J.v.V. and M.D.P.; software, O.J.O.; validation, Y.X. and C.Z.; formal analysis, O.J.O., C.J.v.V. and M.D.P.; investigation, Y.X. and C.Z.; resources, O.J.O.; data curation, O.J.O.; writing—original draft preparation, O.J.O., C.J.v.V. and M.D.P.; writing—review and editing, O.J.O., C.J.v.V. and M.D.P.; visualization, Y.X.; supervision, O.J.O., C.J.v.V., Y.X., C.Z. and M.D.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The role of information asymmetry in the market for university-industry research collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 84–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ahlquist, J. (2016). Trending now: Digital leadership education using social media and the social change model. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aldawood, H., Alhejaili, A., Alabadi, M., Alharbi, O., & Skinner, G. (2019, July 8–11). Integrating digital leadership in an educational supervision context: A critical appraisal. 2019 International Conference in Engineering Applications (ICEA), Azores Island, Portugal. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Antonopoulou, H., Halkiopoulos, C., Barlou, O., & Beligiannis, G. N. (2020). Leadership types and digital leadership in higher education: Behavioural data analysis from University of Patras in Greece. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(4), 110–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Tony Bates Associates Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  8. Benavides, L. M. C., Tamayo Arias, J. A., Arango Serna, M. D., Branch Bedoya, J. W., & Burgos, D. (2020). Digital transformation in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Sensors, 20(11), 3291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Benitez, J., Arenas, A., Castillo, A., & Esteves, J. (2022). Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: The role of platform digitization capability. Information & Management, 59(2), 103590. [Google Scholar]
  10. Blakeman, K. (2018). Bibliometrics in a digital age: Help or hindrance. Science Progress, 101(3), 293–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Borah, P. S., Iqbal, S., & Akhtar, S. (2022). Linking social media usage and SME’s sustainable performance: The role of digital leadership and innovation capabilities. Technology in Society, 68, 101900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brown, C., Czerniewicz, L., Mayisela, T., & Huang, C. W. (2016, November 27–30). A practice-based approach to theorising digital education leadership (Concept paper). Eighth Pan-Commonwealth Forum, Lumpur, Malaysia. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown, L. (2014). Best practices of leadership in educational technology. Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 1–6. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098558.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2025). [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 57, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cheng, Z., Dinh, N. B. K., Caliskan, A., & Zhu, C. (2024, December 12). Dimensions of digital academic leadership in higher education: A systematic review. International Conference ALTA (Vol. 23, pp. 63–68), Lithuania, LA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark, W. R., Clark, L. A., Raffo, D. M., & Williams, R. I. (2021). Extending fisch and block’s (2018) tips for a systematic review in management and business literature. Management Review Quarterly, 71, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Couros, G. (2013, January 7). Digital leadership defined. George Couros. Available online: https://georgecouros.ca/blog/archives/3584 (accessed on 26 June 2025).
  19. Cretu, D. M., & Grosseck, G. (2025). A bibliometric analysis of romanian educational research in web of science: Trends, challenges, and opportunities for global integration. Education Sciences, 15(3), 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Domeny, J. V. (2017). The relationship between digital leadership and digital implementation in elementary schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwest Baptist University]. [Google Scholar]
  21. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Erhan, T., Uzunbacak, H. H., & Aydin, E. (2022). From conventional to digital leadership: Exploring digitalization of leadership and innovative work behavior. Management Research Review, 45(11), 1524–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Goh, J. M., & Arenas, A. E. (2020). IT value creation in public sector: How IT-enabled capabilities mitigate tradeoffs in public organisations. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(1), 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Govender, D. W., & Jugernath, J. (2017). Digital learning and digital leadership for digital citizenship in a digital age. Journal of Social Sciences, 51(3), 111–122. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hamzah, N. H., Nasir, M. K. M., & Wahab, J. A. (2021). The effects of principals’ digital leadership on teachers’ digital teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 8(2), 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hérubel, J. P. V. (1999). Historical bibliometrics: Its purpose and significance to the history of disciplines. Libraries & Culture, 34(4), 380–388. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hou, J., & Hu, Z. (2019). Review on the application of Citespace at home and abroad. Journal of Modern Information, 33, 99–103. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/db7ecc97-fe3e-40ba-936e-95caf1ebe1df-0108208d85/relevance/1 (accessed on 26 June 2025).
  29. Ifelebuegu, A. O., Kulume, P., & Cherukut, P. (2023). Chatbots and AI in Education (AIEd) tools: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 332–345. [Google Scholar]
  30. Jameson, J., Rumyantseva, N., Cai, M., Markowski, M., Essex, R., & McNay, I. (2022). A systematic review and framework for digital leadership research maturity in higher education. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jansen van Vuuren, C. D., Visser, K., & Du Plessis, M. (2021). Contemporary leadership behaviour enabling leadership effectiveness in a public university [Doctoral thesis, University of the Western Cape]. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kane, G. C., Phillips, A. N., Copulsky, J., & Andrus, G. (2019). How digital leadership is (n’t) different. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(3), 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  33. Karakose, T., Kocabas, I., Yirci, R., Papadakis, S., Ozdemir, T. Y., & Demirkol, M. (2022). The development and evolution of digital leadership: A bibliometric mapping approach-based study. Sustainability, 14(23), 16171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Keengwe, J., & Anyanwu, C. N. (2017). Digital leadership in higher education: Preparing for the fourth industrial revolution. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(5), 410–412. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kokot, K., Kokotec, I. Đ., & Čalopa, M. K. (2023). Digital leadership and maturity as a key to successful digital transformation: Country case study of Croatia. TEM Journal, 12(1), 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lin, K. H., Mo, S., Klingher, B., Mu, F., & Zhou, B. (2024). Ctrl-x: Controlling structure and appearance for text-to-image generation without guidance. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37, 128911–128939. [Google Scholar]
  37. Liu, X., Liu, N., Zhou, M., Lu, Y., & Li, F. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of global research on the rehabilitation of spinal cord injury in the past two decades. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lu, Y. (2017). Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mao, G., Shi, T., Zhang, S., Crittenden, J., Guo, S., & Du, H. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of insights into soil remediation. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 18(7), 2520–2534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Marczewska, M., Weresa, M. A., & Lachowicz, M. (2024). Towards creativity and innovation in universities: Study on central and eastern Europe. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 1363–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mayr, P., & Scharnhorst, A. (2015). Scientometrics and information retrieval: Weak-links revitalized. Scientometrics, 102, 2193–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. McGonagill, G., & Doerffer, T. (2011). Leadership and web 2.0: The leadership implications of the evolving web. Bertelsmann Stiftun. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mihajlo, M., Vuk, A., Rosanda, I., Vuk, S., Aleksandar, S., Aleksandra, P., Marina, M., Zarko, N., Sacco, M., & Danica, G. (2019). Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea in a patient with Pallister–Hall syndrome. Romanian Neurosurgery, 33(3), 305–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nyahodza, L., & Higgs, R. (2017). Towards bridging the digital divide in post-apartheid South Africa: A case of a historically disadvantaged university in Cape Town. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 83(1), 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Orcutt, J. M., & Dringus, L. P. (2017). Beyond being there: Practices that establish presence, engage students and influence intellectual curiosity in a structured online learning environment. Online Learning Journal, 21(3), 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rębisz, S., & Lungulov, B. (2022). Education scholars from Eastern Europe in the digital environment: A comparative study of selected universities from Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Serbia. Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS), 69(3), 238–251. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(2), 237–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008). Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 62–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sheninger, E. (2019). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. Corwin Press. [Google Scholar]
  50. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tuerk-Stonberg, J., & Bardzik, J. (2023). Epigraphy, image, and material: The strategic power of the word “and” on byzantine uterine amulets. Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, 18(3), 333–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vial, S. (2019). Being and the screen: How the digital changes perception. Published in one volume with a short treatise on design. MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang, W., & Lu, C. (2020). Visualization analysis of big data research based on Citespace. Soft Computing, 24(11), 8173–8186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, Z., Qi, F., Liu, L., Chen, M., Sun, D., & Nan, J. (2021). How do urban rainfall-runoff pollution control technologies develop in China? A systematic review based on bibliometric analysis and literature summary. Science of the Total Environment, 789, 148045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wild, J., van der Merwe, M., & Stacey, E. (2019). Leadership in a digital age: Developing digital and distributed leadership in South African higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1180–1195. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wu, L., Wang, W., Jing, P., Chen, Y., Zhan, F., Shi, Y., & Li, T. (2020). Travel mode choice and their impacts on environment—A literature review based on bibliometric and content analysis, 2000–2018. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249, 119391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, Y., Wang, H., Wang, Z., Zhang, B., & Meyer, B. C. (2019). Knowledge mapping analysis of rural landscape using CiteSpace. Sustainability, 12, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zeike, S., Bradbury, K., Lindert, L., & Pfaff, H. (2019). Digital leadership skills and associations with psychological well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhong, L. (2016). The effectiveness of digital leadership at K-12 schools in Mississippi regarding communication and collaboration during CCRS implementation. The University of Southern Mississippi. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zou, S., Glynn, S. A., Makani, J., Tayou Tagny, C., El Ekiaby, M., Sabino, E. C., Choudhury, N., Teo, D., Nelson, K., Peprah, E., Price, L., & Engelgau, M. M. (2018). Addressing gaps in international blood availability and transfusion safety in low-and middle-income countries: A NHLBI workshop. Transfusion, 58(5), 1307–1317. [Google Scholar]
Education 15 00846 g001
Figure 1. Trend of publications over the years (2014–2024).
Figure 1. Trend of publications over the years (2014–2024).
Education 15 00846 g001
Education 15 00846 g002
Figure 2. Bar chart visualization of the top 25 Web of Science research categories for “digital academic leadership”.
Figure 2. Bar chart visualization of the top 25 Web of Science research categories for “digital academic leadership”.
Education 15 00846 g002
Education 15 00846 g003
Figure 3. Co-citation clustering of literature and reference visualization for digital academic leadership in higher education. (Note: Node size represents citation frequency, with larger nodes indicating higher citation counts. Link thickness reflects the strengths of co-citation relationships between documents. Colors distinguish different thematic clusters, with each cluster representing a coherent research area within digital academic leadership).
Figure 3. Co-citation clustering of literature and reference visualization for digital academic leadership in higher education. (Note: Node size represents citation frequency, with larger nodes indicating higher citation counts. Link thickness reflects the strengths of co-citation relationships between documents. Colors distinguish different thematic clusters, with each cluster representing a coherent research area within digital academic leadership).
Education 15 00846 g003
Education 15 00846 g004
Figure 4. Keyword co-authorship visualization for digital academic leadership in higher education research.
Figure 4. Keyword co-authorship visualization for digital academic leadership in higher education research.
Education 15 00846 g004
Education 15 00846 g005
Figure 5. Keyword co-occurrence visualization for digital academic leadership in higher education research.
Figure 5. Keyword co-occurrence visualization for digital academic leadership in higher education research.
Education 15 00846 g005
Education 15 00846 g006
Figure 6. Visualization of major research institutions in the field of digital academic leadership in higher education.
Figure 6. Visualization of major research institutions in the field of digital academic leadership in higher education.
Education 15 00846 g006
Education 15 00846 g007
Figure 7. Visualization of collaborating countries in the research of digital academic leadership in higher education.
Figure 7. Visualization of collaborating countries in the research of digital academic leadership in higher education.
Education 15 00846 g007
Table 1. Authors’ collaboration.
Table 1. Authors’ collaboration.
Citation CountsDegreeSigmaCentralityNode NameCluster ID
251.00145Zulu, Sambo Lyson5
151.00124Papadakis, Stamatios0
151.00135Yirci, Ramazan0
151.00132Demirkol, Murat0
151.00123Kocabas, Ibrahim0
151.0089Karakose, Turgut0
141.00146Ozdemir, Tuncay Yavuz0
141.00256Hoeborn, Gerrit1
141.00234Yanto, Heri2
141.00201Zia, Ayesha3
Table 2. Top 20 high-frequency keywords.
Table 2. Top 20 high-frequency keywords.
Citation CountsDegreeCentralityNode NameSigmaCluster ID
20621.20digital leadership1.000
9300.10digital transformation1.002
5260.09performance1.002
5240.05innovation1.002
4170.02transformational leadership1.004
3160.02dynamic capability1.002
3150.01capability1.003
3130.16communication1.001
2120.02knowledge1.005
2110.01technology1.001
Table 3. Top 10 higher educational institutions.
Table 3. Top 10 higher educational institutions.
Citation CountsDegreeCentralityNode Name (Institution)SigmaCluster ID
260.04National University of Sciences and Technology—Pakistan1.000
250.04Ollscoil na Gaillimhe-University of Galway1.000
230.02University College Cork1.000
230.00Usak University1.004
230.00Leeds Beckett University1.009
130.00IBM USA1.001
130.00Indian Institute of Management (IIM System)1.002
130.00Indian Institute of Management Ranchi1.002
130.00Dumlupinar University1.003
130.00North Carolina State University1.001
Table 4. The top 8 countries in terms of the number of articles issued.
Table 4. The top 8 countries in terms of the number of articles issued.
Citation CountsDegreeCentralityNode NameSigmaCluster ID
390.31PAKISTAN1.001
340.07IRELAND1.001
260.13INDIA1.000
140.00UZBEKISTAN1.000
-40.00FINLAND-0
-40.00OMAN-0
-30.00UNITED ARAB EMIRATES-1
-30.00NEW ZEALAND-1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Olabiyi, O.J.; Vuuren, C.J.v.; Du Plessis, M.; Xue, Y.; Zhu, C. Digital Academic Leadership in Higher Education Institutions: A Bibliometric Review Based on CiteSpace. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070846

AMA Style

Olabiyi OJ, Vuuren CJv, Du Plessis M, Xue Y, Zhu C. Digital Academic Leadership in Higher Education Institutions: A Bibliometric Review Based on CiteSpace. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(7):846. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070846

Chicago/Turabian Style

Olabiyi, Olaniyi Joshua, Carl Jansen van Vuuren, Marieta Du Plessis, Yujie Xue, and Chang Zhu. 2025. "Digital Academic Leadership in Higher Education Institutions: A Bibliometric Review Based on CiteSpace" Education Sciences 15, no. 7: 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070846

APA Style

Olabiyi, O. J., Vuuren, C. J. v., Du Plessis, M., Xue, Y., & Zhu, C. (2025). Digital Academic Leadership in Higher Education Institutions: A Bibliometric Review Based on CiteSpace. Education Sciences, 15(7), 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070846

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop