Digitalization and school leadership: a scoping review

Abstract

Research on digitalization and school leadership is emerging, but remains fragmented and under-researched, as indicated in recent reviews. Based on this, we conducted a scoping review of 38 empirical studies published between 2014 and 2024. The review focuses on the descriptive characteristics of the field, how digitalization and digital school leadership are defined, which themes researchers address, and how existing research can be organized into emerging research streams. The findings show that the field is expanding, but remains scattered across disciplines and journals, with a strong geographical focus on Europe, particularly Sweden, and parts of Asia. Although qualitative and quantitative approaches are relatively balanced, mixed-method, longitudinal, and comparative designs are underused. As a result, much of the literature provides snapshot accounts or examines the relationship between digital leadership and teachers’ technology use. Digital school leadership is often treated as complex, yet this complexity is rarely unpacked analytically, leading to few studies of how leadership is enacted in everyday practice. Furthermore, the field reveals limited theoretical engagement and an unclear understanding of digitalization. The review also identifies a paradoxical approach to digital leadership. On the one hand, studies often lack explicit definitions; on the other hand, their research designs and methods create two knowledge logics: a predefined, expectation-oriented logic and a situated, practice-oriented logic. Consequently, the review argues for research that moves beyond individualized understandings of digital leadership and examines how it is enacted across organizational, technological, and governance contexts. It concludes by proposing a research agenda to address these gaps and guide future studies in more coherent and theoretically grounded directions.

1 Introduction

School leaders are expected to play a key role in the digitalization of educational contexts (Håkansson, Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019). Researchers argue that school leaders have to manage very complex and demanding tasks, practices, and processes that intersect between rapid societal and technological shifts, such as generative artificial intelligence (AI) (Richardsson et al., 2021), global pandemics (Menon, 2025), integration of new technologies, fostering innovative learning environments, and preparing students for a digital future (Arar et al., 2025; Chen and Kouhsari, 2025; Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019). In parallel, studies claim that the role of the digital school leader has become complex owing to digitalization.

Paradoxically, although an extensive body of research examines teachers’ roles in digitalized educational settings (e.g., Nilsberth et al., 2021; Wohlfart and Wagner 2023), the research literature on digital leadership among school leaders is limited and conceptually unsettled. To the best of our knowledge, only two systematic efforts have been conducted to synthesize and map the existing research on the relationship between digitalization and digital school leadership. Addressing the first work, Krein, (2023) analyzed 31 research contributions on the relationship between digitalization and school leadership, covering the period from 2000 to 2020. Krein, (2023) finds that research has focused on school leaders’ roles in integrating digital technologies, including their own practices, new leadership tasks, and emerging challenges. Furthermore, the conceptualization of school leadership, both in terms of the concept itself and who counts as a school leader, remains unspecific, and the understanding of digitalization is also unclear. Research tends to focus on technology implementation processes, neglecting the role that socio-cultural aspects can play in digital transformation processes. Krein, (2023) indicates that research is characterized by little variation in research methods, with only questionnaires and interviews used. Addressing the second work, Wollscheid et al. (2025) conducted a bibliometric analysis of research published between 1945 and 2022. This work collected metadata and identified publication patterns and research clusters, showing very broad research trends in digital school leadership. The study reveals a notable increase in publications since 2019, peaking in 2021, and an increase in the relevance of the concept “leadership”, a pattern confirmed in other works (Karakose et al., 2024; Krein, 2023).

2 Method

Scoping reviews are essential for mapping existing evidence and identifying gaps, thereby contributing to setting a research agenda and priorities (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Khalil and Tricco, 2022). This review follows Arksey and O'Malley’s (2005) five-step framework and Peters et al.'s (2015) guidelines. The steps are: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting data, and (5) collating and reporting results. The process is iterative, requiring reflexive engagement and repeated steps to thoroughly cover the literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). To ensure transparency, we followed the PRISMA Protocol for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018) as recommended by Peters et al. (2015). We visualized the selection process using a detailed flowchart (Figure 1), incorporating elements from the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template for systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021).

Figure 1

2.1 Identification

For the search, we used the databases ERIC, Education Source, Scopus and Web of Science, with specific focus on peer-reviewed journal articles published in research databases in English in the period 2014–2024. The databases were searched in September 2024 using the following search string: digitalization OR “digital transformation*” OR digitization OR “digital transition*” OR “digital shift”  AND “school leader*” OR “school leadership” OR “school principal*” OR “leadership in school*” OR leader* OR leadership OR “educational leadership” OR “pedagogical leadership”  AND “K-12 school*” OR “Elementary school*” OR “elementary education” OR “primary school*” OR “primary education” OR “High school” OR “Upper secondary school*” OR “upper secondary education” OR “secondary school*” OR “secondary education” OR “grammar school*” OR school*. The search string was deliberately held broad because the field is fragmented and prior research indicates that key concepts are defined and operationalized inconsistently across studies. Moreover, as our objective was to map the breadth of existing literature rather than address a narrowly focused question, we sought to capture the widest possible range of concepts, populations, settings, and study designs.

2.2 Screening and selection

2.2.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The selection of articles for analysis was an iterative process that involved thorough discussions of the inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as our understanding of school leadership as being an enacted practice and school leader limited to an individual formal school leader. The inclusion and exclusion criteria presented in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 2 are the result of discussions about articles we were not sure whether to include or not. Our primary interest was in articles focusing on digital school leadership as the topic and on formal school leaders as the target population. However, we acknowledge that studies focusing on school leaders in a digital context, as well as studies examining digital school leadership from perspectives other than that of the formal school leader, also provide valuable findings and are important to the field of digitalization and school leadership. Therefore, we agreed on including specific combinations of topical focus and target population. Thus, we included studies that 1) utilized digital school leadership as the topic and school leaders as the population, or 2a) used digitalization as the topic and school leaders as the population, or 2b) used digital school leadership as the topic and school leaders in combination with other groups (e.g., administrators, extended school leader teams, teachers, pupils etc.) or only other groups as the data focus.

Figure 2

2.2.2 Screening and selection of articles

We began with 406 articles; after excluding doublets, we screened the abstracts of 281 articles using the application Rayyan. To control for and exclude irrelevant studies, all abstracts were read separately by two researchers; if they disagreed regarding whether to include or exclude an article, the team of four researchers discussed and took a joint decision. If the team did not agree or too little information was provided in the abstract, the article was included. This process stretched over several weeks and included three digital meetings. 197 articles were excluded because they did not fit the scope and 76 articles were selected for full-text screening; one of these articles could not be retrieved. The 75 full texts were read separately by two researchers; disagreements between them were resolved through the reading and discussion of the article by the entire team. 50 articles were excluded as a result of this process. Thereafter, we checked the reference lists of the remaining 25 articles; we identified 15 articles that were potentially relevant, considering our criteria. Twelve of these were included after having been read and discussed by two researchers. The process is illustrated in Figure 1.

Additionally, as indicated above, the process was iterative. For example, as illustrated in Figure 1, two researchers re-assessed the 197 articles that were initially excluded to ensure that no studies had been omitted due to the slightly different understandings of the criteria and key concepts at the beginning of the selection process. The reassessment resulted in the inclusion of one article. Thus, we included 38 articles in the analysis. Of these, 22 belong to the core group (1) and are based on school leaders as the population and focus on digital leadership as the topic, two of them are based on school leaders as the population and digitalization as the topic (2A), and 14 focus on digital school leadership as the topic and are based on a mixed population or other groups (2B).

2.3 Data charting and analysis

To answer RQ1 related to the general characteristics of the research, we created a data chart in Microsoft Excel and collected relevant information from the articles (see Supplementary Material). Then, we conducted a descriptive analysis of the year of publication, journal, country where the research was conducted, participants, and methods. To answer RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4, we conducted thematic analyses (Braun and Clarke, 2019; 2021) related to the research questions’ foci. The analyses were conducted in pairs and, like the article selection process, followed an approach that involved extensive discussions within and across the researcher pairs. First, all researchers re-read the articles, highlighting sections they identified as relevant to the research questions and discussed possible themes and patterns. Subsequently, the researchers deepened the analysis by revisiting the texts in pairs and collaboratively developing the themes through ongoing discussion.

The analysis focusing on RQ2 followed a structured approach (Braun and Clarke 2021), when reading the articles we looked for key concepts and how they were defined. We clustered the articles employing the same terms and summarized the definitions used. This was a straightforward process where the collaborating researchers did not disagree.

The analysis related to RQ3 followed an inductive and reflexive approach to thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2019). First, we created codes based on topics addressed in the articles’ findings and discussion sections; examples include facilitating professional development, collaboration, strategic leadership, and distributed leadership. The themes, such as many roles and responsibilities and different leadership styles, were generated by taking into account the codes as well as the researchers’ prior experience and knowledge of the field. Even though the process was reflexive, we challenged each other and asked for a clear justification for the themes.

The analysis related to RQ4 was the most complex. It builds on and combines the descriptive characteristics and themes, and delves deeper into patterns across the articles, also exploring the theories and frameworks employed in the analysis and discussion of the findings. The process of constructing research streams was iterative and involved many discussions about why certain articles belonged to a particular stream and where to draw distinctions.

To sum up the analysis, we started out descriptively and then step by step unpacked the included articles to get a detailed overview but also a deeper and more structured understanding of the messy field of digitalization and school leadership.

3 Findings

3.1 General descriptive characteristics of the current research in the field (RQ1)

This descriptive analysis examines publication periods, journal categories, geographical distribution across countries and continents, the employed methodology/methods, and the characteristics of study participants. For a complete overview of the findings, please see the data extraction sheet (Supplementary Materials).

3.1.1 Publication period

Between 2014 and 2024, the articles on digitalization and leadership in schools showed a consistent upward trajectory. As shown in Table 2, in 2023 and 2024, there was a significant increase in the number of articles. It is important to note that 36 of the articles focus on digital school leadership as such and two (2A) on other aspects related to digitalization from the perspective of a school leader, such as employing emails as a key work tool (Heffernan and Selwyn, 2023) and evaluating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on schools (Palau et al., 2024).

3.1.2 Journals for publication

The 38 included articles are published across 35 different scientific journals (for details, see Supplementary Material). The 35 academic journals were analyzed based on their thematic focus to determine where research is primarily published. This classification identified several dominant fields with a high concentration of articles: education and ICT, education, and leadership (see Table 3).

3.1.3 Articles categorized by countries and continents

There has been a broad distribution of articles that originate from various countries as shown in Table 4. Notably, during 2023 and 2024, Sweden emerged as a significant contributor to the academic publication landscape, with several articles authored by Swedish researchers. Among these, multiple publications were authored by the same individuals, including Håkansson Lindqvist (n = 2), Pettersson (n = 2), Siljebo (n = 2), and Willermark (n = 2).

When categorized by continent, most studies have been conducted in Europe, with Asia following closely behind. In contrast, the remaining five continents, including the United States, collectively account for only four articles (see Table 5).

3.1.4 Articles categorized by methods and empirical data

We found an even distribution of qualitative and quantitative research methods between 2014 and 2024 (see Table 6). Qualitative studies primarily utilized interviews with school leaders as sole informants (groups 1 or 2A) and document analysis. Respondents ranged from 3 to 73, with a median of 10. Notably, 75% of studies included 12 or fewer respondents, indicating possible empirical robustness issues. Additionally, the lack of theoretical frameworks for analyzing empirical data worsens this deficiency, as elaborated in findings related to RQ4.

Quantitative studies are primarily based on surveys. Self-reported questionnaires, factor analysis, and double population studies are most frequently used. The samples range from 96 to 1941, with a median of 244 participants. Five of these studies include more than 400 participants. Two studies (Tanucan et al., 2023; Navaridas Nalda et al., 2020) rely solely on school leaders as informants, while the others use either mixed groups (school leaders along with teachers or other stakeholders) or teachers only. Although both qualitative and quantitative approaches have been utilized, no studies have adopted a mixed-methods approach with potential for triangulation. There is also a lack of longitudinal research methodologies and comparative studies that examine the intersection of digitalization and school leadership.

3.1.5 Articles categorized by different contexts

The articles can be related to three different contexts. Most studies adopt an overarching approach generally using (1) “digitalization of society and schools” as the backdrop and explore (e.g., Ghavifekr and Wong 2022; Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019; Richardson et al., 2021; Ruloff and Petko, 2021; Willermark et al., 2024) or evaluate (e.g., Al Nuaimi et al., 2024; A’mar and Eleyan, 2022Raman et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2017) digital school leadership. Other studies use the (2) COVID-19 pandemic as the backdrop. They examine school leadership during the pandemic (e.g., AlAjmi, 2022; Baroudi 2026; Berkovich and Hassan, 2025; Clark and Triegaardt, 2022; Karakose et al., 2021; Willermark and Islind, 2023) or school leadership in the wake of COVID-19 (e.g., Kilcoyne, 2026; Palau et al., 2024). Only a few of the studies are based on data collected in relation to (3) concrete projects for technology integration; for example, the project “Write to Learn” focusing on the integration of digital technologies into learning activities that employ the substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition (SAMR) model (Agélii Genlott et al., 2023), or projects related to the introduction of one-to-one solutions (e.g., Håkansson Lindqvist, 2019; Mårell-Olsson and Bergström, 2018; Tømte and Smedsrud, 2023) and AI tools (Cheng and Wang, 2023).

3.2 Conceptualization of digitalization and digital school leadership (RQ2)

Numerous studies lack explicit definitions of the concepts of digitalization or digital school leadership. Of the 38 publications analyzed, 21 did not provide an explicit definition. Instead, these terms are frequently employed with the implicit assumption that their meanings are self-evident, without a rigorous conceptual clarification or a comprehensive justification of why these processes necessitate changes in school leadership. The remaining 17 publications provide specific definitions across four key areas: 1) digital transformation (N = 7), 2) digitalization of schools (N = 5), 3) digitalization and schools as organizations (N = 2), and 4) digital school leadership (N = 3).

3.2.1 Definitions of digital transformation

The concept of digital transformation is defined in seven publications. According to Navaridas-Nalda et al. (2020), the digital transformation of schools is an educational priority and Al Nuaimi et al. (2024) defined digital transformation as a primary goal for most educational institutions, including the use of AI, big data analytics, cloud computing, and the Internet of Things (IoT). Karakose et al. (2021) define digital transformation, in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, as a process of change that can only be achieved through the application of technological elements and the comprehensive digitalization of an institution's work, processes, and practices

Primahendra et al. (2024). defined digital transformation not only as the adoption of digital technology but also cultural transformation, more flexible work processes, and an infrastructure that is easier to modify. Willermark et al. (2024) defined digital transformation as an organizational change triggered and shaped by the widespread use of digital technology. In an educational context, digital transformation is described as a multidimensional process that spans numerous different areas, from infrastructure and administrative routines to pedagogical issues, competence development, and student learning. Tømte and Smedsrud (2023) defined digital transformation as also including managerial aspects that describe what organizations have already done and plan to do to digitally transform their products, processes, and services. Rauseo et al. (2023) provided a definition of digital transformation that describes the profound structural change of the world of work through digital technologies. This leads to new business models, work processes, job profiles, and, therefore, to new requirements regarding the competence profiles of employees and apprentices.

3.2.2 Definitions of digitalization of schools

Focusing on the publications that provide definitions of digitalization, five studies provide distinct conceptualizations of school digitalization. Agélii Genlott et al. (2023) defined digitalization of schools as an ongoing process with multiple challenges, necessitating strategic action and leadership. Siljebo (2024, 2025) conceptualized digitalization in schools as a social phenomenon that emerges when learning is mediated through digital technologies in educational activities. Håkansson Lindqvist (2019) identifies digitalization as one of the eight priority areas for national school development in Sweden, emphasizing its strategic significance within the broader educational policy framework. Additionally, Mårell-Olsson and Bergström (2018) reference the Swedish National Digitalization Strategy for Schools, which delineates digital competence for principals, teachers, and students, thereby highlighting the crucial role of strategic management for school leaders in facilitating effective digital integration.

3.2.3 Definitions of digitalization and schools as organizations

The concept of digitalization and schools as organizations is defined in two publications. Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson (2019) defined digitalization as a broad and complex concept that encompasses technical, pedagogical, administrative, and organizational challenges at all levels of the school organization. Similarly, Pettersson (2018) explored how schools’ structure their organizations, institutional infrastructure, and activities as conditions for digitalization. This study defined two types of digitally competent school organizations: goal- and structure-oriented schools and culture-oriented schools. These classifications or definitions represent the diverse ways in which educational institutions approach digitalization, shaping both policy development and practical implementation strategies.

3.2.4 Definitions of digital school leadership

The concept of digital leadership is defined in two publications. AlAjmi (2022) defined digital leadership as the use and implementation of management approaches aligned with the demands of the digital age, including reliance on modern technology platforms. Digital leadership requires high standards for innovation. Similarly, Zhong (2017) conceptualized digital school leadership as the strategic use of instructional technology to inspire and lead a school's digital transformation, create and maintain a digital learning culture, support and enhance technology-based professional development, provide and maintain digital organizational leadership, and facilitate and manage digital citizenship.

3.3 The themes addressed in current research (RQ3)

In this section, we present the overarching theme we constructed across the articles: a complex picture of school leadership.

The studies’ findings conveyed a complex picture of digital school leadership and foregrounded several sub-themes that can be found across the articles: 1) school leaders’ undisputed importance, 2) many roles and responsibilities, 3) varying digital competence in school leaders, 4) different leadership styles, and 5) other.

First, basically all articles emphasize the undisputed importance of school leaders for digital transformation. Specifically, Ruloff and Petko (2021) state that “the results demonstrate that principals are indeed key players for digital development in schools” (p. 13). Researchers state that school leaders are “cornerstones” (Al Nuaimi et al., 2024, p. 30) and “the main agents” (Cheng and Wang, 2023, p. 8) for digital transformation in schools. Their digital leadership practice is one of the main factors influencing teachers’ technology integration and use of digital resources for teaching (AlAjmi, 2022; A’mar and Eleyan, 2022; Raman et al., 2019; Thannimalai and Raman, 2018; Wei et al., 2017).

Second, many articles highlight that the many roles and responsibilities of the school leader have become more complex and intricate because of digitalization (e.g., Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019, Reis-Andersson, 2024, Ruloff and Petko, 2021). For example, school leaders need to set a clear direction through shared goals and visions (e.g., Agélii Genlott et al., 2023; Ghavifekr and Wong, 2022; Petterson, 2018, Reis-Andersson, 2024), as they are primarily responsible for the process of digital development in their schools (Ruloff and Petko, 2021). Therefore, it also important that the school leaders are actively engaged and interested in digital transformation (e.g., Agélii Genlott et al., 2023; Mårell-Olsson and Bergström, 2018; Ruloff and Petko, 2021). They need to have a positive attitude toward digital technology and see the value of it being integrated into teaching (AlAjmi, 2022; Navaridas-Nalda et al., 2020). In addition, they must be open-minded, daring to do new things (Richardson et al., 2021), and act as role models (Reyes, 2015; Zhong, 2017). Moreover, school leaders need to be good at communicating with both teachers and other stakeholders, such as parents (e.g., Clark and Triegaardt, 2022; Karakose et al., 2021Petterson, 2018);. Al Nuaimi et al. (2024) describe school leaders’ ability to promote an open dialogue as conducive to facilitating change and creating a supportive environment. Being able to create a supportive environment based on trust and focusing on people's needs, skills, and abilities is crucial for leading digital transformation (e.g., Håkansson Lindqvist, 2019; Richardson et al., 2021). School leaders are expected to facilitate professional development within the field of digital competence for teaching and learning (e.g., Clark and Triegaardt 2022; Dagli et al., 2023; Mårell-Olsson and Bergström, 2018; Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019; Richardson et al., 2021). Approaches related to professional development are focused on establishing arenas for collaborations and networking (e.g., Agélii Genlott et al., 2023; Mårell-Olsson and Bergström, 2018; Sterrett and Richardson 2020Zhong, 2017); where teachers can share and discuss their work and experiences (Håkansson Lindqvist, 2019) and teach each other (Sterrett and Richardson, 2020). In addition, school leaders also need to ensure teachers’ participation in development processes by collaborating with them (Dagli et al., 2023) and carefully recruiting and inviting them to participate in projects (Agélii Genlott et al., 2023; Mårell-Olsson and Bergström, 2018; Zhong, 2017). To successfully lead digital change, school leaders are also supposed to provide for and improve the digital infrastructure. For example, ensure access to digital resources, Internet (Clark and Triegaardt et al., 2022; Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019; Reiss-Andersson, 2024; Richardson et al., 2021; Zhong, 2017), as well as technological (Ghavifekr and Wong, 2022; Navaridas-Nalda et al. 2020; Pettersson, 2018) and pedagogical support (Pettersson, 2018).

Third, a challenge related to the roles and responsibilities appears to be that school leaders differ in their understanding of digitalization as well as what it entails for schools and education (Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019; Siljebo, 2024); this also influences their understanding of the roles and responsibilities related to digital leadership. Consequently, they prioritize and act upon them differently (Tømte and Smedsrud, 2023). It should also be noted that usually the articles do not focus on one role or responsibility and research it in depth; rather, they examine the combination of several roles and responsibilities and conclude with a statement regarding the complexity of roles and responsibilities. Only Heffernan and Selwyn, 2023 go into depth when exploring how school leaders work with and are impacted by emails. School leaders’ digital competence is addressed as a factor that is crucial for leading digital transformation in schools (e.g., Al Nuaimi et al., 2024; Navaridas-Nalda, 2019; Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019; Willermark and Islind, 2023). However, it appears that school leaders often do not have the technological knowledge needed for this and are required to develop it (Dagli et al., 2023; Reiss-Andersson, 2024). Even though school leaders need insight into this digital competence for leading the work of teachers, it appears that school leaders are not sure about which digital competencies they need to be well-versed in; a few even believe that their own digital competency is not necessary in leading for digitalization. Instead, they argue that it is sufficient if they have competent personnel to whom they can delegate the responsibility (Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019).

Fourth, even though the concept of digital school leadership is barely defined explicitly in the examined studies, a few of the articles relate to frameworks and conceptualizations for leadership styles, such as transformational (e.g., Baroudi, 2026; Berkovich and Hassan, 2025; Ruloff and Petko, 2021, Primahendra et al., 2024), transactional (e.g., Reyes, 2015; Ruloff and Petko, 2021), and distributed leadership (e.g., Kilkoyne, 2024) and apply or adapt them in the digital context and during crises. The studies highlight both the perceived importance and observed practice (or lack thereof) of these different styles and focus on which leadership style is conducive to digital transformation. For example, Ruloff and Petko (2021) conclude that “the quality of digital change is not only dependent on goals or goal clarity, but also on the style of leadership” (p. 13). Their interview study with six school leaders revealed that the combination of a transactional and transformational style led to more rapid and more profound changes than a style oriented toward transactional leadership only; moreover, a laissez-faire style did not lead to any changes in the teachers’ ways of teaching with digital technologies. In addition, the study by Baroudi (2026), focusing on Arab female educational leaders revealed that a transformational approach helped them maintain the schools’ performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study by Willermark and Islind, (2023), which is also situated in the COVID-19 context, attempts to describe what virtual leadership entails.

Lastly, other aspects that are named but are not frequently referred to are gender aspects of digital leadership (Baroudi, 2026), school leaders’ views on digitalization in schools (Siljebo, 2024; Tanucan et al. 2023), and expectations from national educational policy (Siljebo, 2025).

3.4 Research streams identified focusing on methods and conceptual or theoretical framework (RQ4)

Based on methods and conceptual or theoretical frameworks, the following five research streams, also shown in Table 7 were identified: 1) Quantitative studies, 2) theory-intensive studies, 3) practice perspective, 4) frameworks, and 5) inductive studies.

3.4.1 Stream 1: quantitative studies

The first research stream, quantitative studies, which is the largest and comprises 14 studies, employs a variety of quantitative research strategies to analytically frame digital leadership in schools. The use of survey-based and statistical methods produces comparable knowledge across various domains, including attempts to determine whether school leaders’ digital competence, leadership capabilities, or attitudes toward technology are associated with teachers’ technology integration, digital competence, or organizational outcomes or processes. From our assessment, there is a distinction between effect-studies, which test correlations and group differences, and descriptive studies that provide a snapshot of digital leadership without aiming to measure its effects. This body of research shows that notions of digital leadership can be predetermined and standardized against dimensions of what digital school leadership is expected to comprise (such as normative frameworks) and thereafter be linked to measurable effects or variations of practices and digital developments. The value of this stream is that it contributes to making a very explicit connection between school leaders’ digital competence and teachers’ use of digital technology; moreover, one can deduce that they also adhere to a common analytical model – that leadership competence, vision, organizational culture, and professional development are measured against teachers’ technology use. In contrast, they primarily offer a snapshot analysis rather than an insight into how digital leadership is enacted in practice. Moreover, we note that none of the studies directly track technology implementation processes, engage explicitly with leadership theory beyond predefined measurement frameworks, or delve into how organizational and contextual conditions shape leadership work. Hence, the stream can be divided into three sub-themes that reflect these different quantitative orientations.

The first sub-theme comprises six studies that use single- or two-population designs to deter-mine whether a particular form of digital leadership among school leaders is associated with teachers’ technology use. These studies rely on standardized frameworks of digital leadership as the basis for their analyses, such as ISTE/NETS-A. Studies conducted by A’mar and Eleyan (2022); AlAjmi (2022), and Thannimalai and Raman, (2018) examined the relationship between school leaders’ digital leadership capabilities and teachers’ technology integration. These studies conclude that leadership and technology integration are either strongly correlated or show measurable effects. In contrast, despite using similar methods and the same framework (ISTE and SEM), Raman et al. (2019) found no significant relationship between digital leadership and teachers’ technology practices. Further, in terms of single-population designs, Ghavifekr and Wong (2022) find that school leaders’ digital leadership positively affects both teachers’ technology use and students’ academic performance. Importantly, the study identifies professional development as a mediating variable between leadership and technology integration, thereby offering a slightly more complex model. Similarly, Wei et al. (2017) demonstrate a strong correlation between school leadership practices and teachers’ ICT competencies.

The second sub-theme, comprising four studies, shifts attention to mapping digital leadership profiles and the digital leadership capabilities that may positively affect the conditions for technology integration. For example, Tanucan et al. (2023) measure how sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and school type, influence school leaders’ digital leadership, and Cheng and Wang (2023) examine how school leaders’ digital leadership plays a role in reducing barriers to digital technology adoption and in encouraging teachers to adopt new technologies. Navaridas-Nalda et al. (2020) and Al Nuaimi et al. (2024) examine school leaders’ perceptions of educational digital resources (EDRs) as a positive driver for technology integration.

The third sub-theme comprises four studies that primarily provide status quo descriptions of digital leadership, competence, or stakeholder expectations. These studies attempt to examine school leaders’ digital leadership in relation to conditions that differ in level and complexity across research designs. For example, Doğan (2018) examined school leaders’ perceptions of self-efficacy within digital technology and showed that high levels of these were positively connected to digital leadership. Berkovich and Hassan (2025) used the pandemic as a backdrop to explore the extent to which digital transformational leadership influenced teachers’ sense of belonging to the school as an organization. In contrast, Rauseo et al. (2023) and Primahendra et al. (2024) examined different stakeholders’ expectations related to digital transformation and how they value specific factors for digital school leadership, such as digital competencies and attitudes.

3.4.2 Stream 2: theory-intensive studies

The second research stream, called theory-intensive studies, comprises seven studies that apply different theoretical frameworks as explanatory lenses to understand school digital leadership across contexts, using qualitative research designs. The strength of these studies, is that they apply theory to interpret how school leader practices are enacted or embedded in local realities and in broader processes, such as policy-making, strategy, technology implementation projects, and organizational conditions, which can shape these practices and processes. This means, amongst other things, that digital leadership is seldom conceived as a reified component that can be measured, but rather emerges and is translated through situated interpretations, negotiations, and institutional or technological conditions. Such approaches offer a more comprehensive understanding of digitalization and its embedded complexities. The theories utilized can be divided into two sub-streams: theories used to explore strategic leadership issues in relation to policy and governance, and theories used to explore challenges and competencies in local digital contexts.

The first sub-stream consists of four studies use theory to explore strategic leadership issues in different ways and reveal how external factors are linked to internal digitalization processes that school leaders engage with (Mårell-Olsson and Bergström 2018; Reyes, 2015; Siljebo, 2024, 2025). A key aspect is that digitalization in practice emerges in the interplay between local interpretations and external governance logics, thereby highlighting how school leaders actively negotiate these dynamics and create meaningful digital leadership in their context. Three studies apply Leontiev (1978) and Engeström's (2015) activity theory (Mårell-Olsson and Bergström 2018; Siljebo, 2024, 2025). Siljebo's studies examine how the Swedish education system developed policy instruments that guide how school leaders operationalize digitalization and connect to educational technology (Siljebo, 2025) as well as how such tools shape school leaders’ leadership practices and responsibilities (Siljebo, 2024).

In the second sub-stream, Mårell-Olsson and Bergström 2018 explore the implementation of a 1:1 tablet initiative and reveal how activity theory links this to market-oriented governance and political expectations Reyes (2015), focusing on Singapore, employs a sensemaking perspective (Weick, 1995) to investigate how external pressures shape school leaders’ interpretations of digitalization and their roles in policy implementation.

The remaining studies apply theory-intensive perspectives to explore the challenges school leaders face and the competencies required to lead in local digital contexts. Using diffusion theory, Agélii Genlott et al. (2023) investigate the consequences of a technology initiative in a large municipality. Employing the affordance theory (Gibson, 1977), Willermark and Islind (2023) examine leadership styles in what they call “the virtual school,” referring to the rapid digitalization during the pandemic. Partially inspired by neurobiological perspectives, Clark and Triegaardt (2022) explore how rural school leaders navigated the pandemic and examine the capacities needed for digitalization.

3.4.3 Stream 3: practice perspective

The third research stream, called the practice perspective, comprising only three research works, is small. The aspect that binds them together is that they follow an enactment approach to digital leadership, offering empirical insights into how school leaders use various leadership strategies as every-day practices to make decisions, interact, and use digital technologies in their professional lives. In this sense, the three studies, which use a qualitative research design, reveal the unexplored consequences of the practical work that school leaders carry out, yielding three distinct contributions. First, Sterrett and Richardson (2020) analyze how award-winning school leaders in the United States facilitate professional development to enhance teachers’ digital competence by focusing on networking learning strategies. Second, theoretically grounded in transformational and transactional leadership literature and incorporating the SAMR model, Ruloff and Petko (2021) demonstrate how school leaders continuously and pragmatically shift between the leadership styles based on teachers’ motivation and digital maturity. Third, Heffernan and Selwyn (2023) employ a critical sociological perspective on school leadership to explore the consequences of school leaders’ digital practices focusing on the use of emails as a central tool.

3.4.4 Stream 4: frameworks

The fourth research stream, called frameworks and comprising eight studies, is typified by the use of predefined analytical frameworks for structuring the analysis of what digital school leadership comprises. Such uses indicate that the studies establish which dimensions, tasks, competencies, and organizational conditions are associated with digital leadership among school leaders. Leadership frameworks provide an analytical basis for deepening the understanding of what constitutes digital leadership tasks and practices for school leaders, including capabilities, styles, qualities, profiles, and digital maturity. At the same time, such frameworks can evolve into templates, checklists, and standardized ideal models, implying that other approaches to leadership might be underexplored. However, we note that the studies in this stream are not concerned with establishing measurable correlations or effects between specific leadership practices and teachers’ technology use.

We identify several studies that draw on predefined frameworks. For example, Dexter's (2008) framework is employed in four studies “setting direction,” “developing people,” and “making the organization work” to explore digital leadership from an organizational perspective. Petersen (2014) explores leadership in a Nordic ICT project and reveals contrasting leadership styles across two Swedish schools—one with visible, distributed leadership and the other with a more formal and distant approach. Pettersson (2018) examines how schools organize their structures, institutional frameworks, and activities to support digitalization and organizational development. Petterson, (2018) study identifies two distinct types of digitally competent school organizations: those that are goal- and structure-oriented, and those that are culture-oriented. Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson (2019) explicitly focus on the types of digital competence school leaders need to manage digitalization. Here, digitalization emerges as both a technological and an organizational challenge that requires comprehensive strategies and staff development. Two studies employ the standardized ISTE-A framework to define the essential qualities of digital school leadership: visionary leadership, digital learning culture, professional development, systemic improvement, digital citizenship, and expert use of digital tools. Zhong (2017) explicitly identifies these dimensions in a US school context, while Kilcoyne (2026) extends this to an Irish context, focusing on principals’ self-understanding and leadership priorities. A few other frameworks have been employed just once thus far. Richardson et al. (2021) apply Bolman and Deal's four-frame model (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) to categorize leadership practices in US schools. Tømte and Smedsrud (2023) draw on the digital maturity framework, inspired by DigCompOrg and other European models, to examine how school owners and leaders in Norway understand and enact digital transformation in primary schools with 1:1 device coverage. Håkansson Lindqvist (2019) examines how Swedish school leaders support teachers in 1:1 device initiative, using Luckin, (2010) ecology of resources model and the concept of filters to identify enablers and barriers.

3.4.5 Stream 5: inductive studies

The fifth research stream, inductive studies, comprising six studies, approaches digital school leadership from experience-close and situated perspectives. These studies are inductive and explorative in orientation and focus on understanding school leaders’ personal experiences and situated perspectives, using qualitative research designs, such as case and interview studies (e.g., Karakose et al., 2021; Palau et al., 2024; Reis-Andersson, 2024). These studies do not evaluate school leaders against predefined frameworks or established theoretical traditions. A recurring feature is the focus on how school leaders respond to digitalization, develop strategies, and adapt these in their local school contexts to implement digital school development measures. This means, that the stream shows how digital leadership is experienced, interpreted, and handled within local contexts when school leaders respond to uncertainty and manage various changes related to digitalization. For example. two Swedish studies illustrate how school leaders respond to and describe digitalization. Reis-Andersson (2024) conducted a large study across three municipalities and examined how school leaders approach the complexity of digitalization and leadership-related processes. Willermark et al. (2024) analyze school leaders’ responses in the context of the pandemic and identify four profiles (enthusiastic, affirmative, skeptical, and a fourth unnamed group) that represent different levels of mastery of digital tools, digital competence, and willingness to adapt.

Other examples include Karakose et al. (2021), who study a large population of school leaders in Turkey and explore how they managed digitalization during COVID-19 and identified the capabilities required for digital leadership. Baroudi (2026) studied female school leaders in the Middle East and revealed how they balance organizational priorities, respond to change, and motivate staff while maintaining stability and self-control. In Spain, Palau et al. (2024) examined post-pandemic changes in schools, documenting significant variation in how teachers developed digital competence and adapted to new technological solutions, as well as the emergence of active learning strategies and a more reflective approach to teaching. Finally, Dagli et al. (2023) explore how school leaders in Northern Cyprus assess and apply emerging technologies, such as AI, the metaverse, and augmented reality, while managing ethical, financial, and professional development challenges. However, we note that most of the studies mentioned are primarily descriptive and only to a limited extent connect their findings to broader theorizing in leadership and organizational research.

4 Discussion

The aim of this scoping review was to map the field and conduct a nuanced analysis of the studies to provide a complex, detailed, and structured overview of the existing research in the field. The 38 articles were analyzed focusing on their general descriptive characteristics (RQ1), prevailing understanding and definitions of digitalization and leadership (RQ2), general themes across the articles (RQ3), and research streams based on methodology and theoretical frameworks (RQ4). In the following, findings from the four RQs are integrated, and we further discuss specific characteristics of the field that become apparent in our work in the light of the existing reviews (Krein, 2023; Wollscheid et al., 2025). We point out research gaps and summarize them in the form of a research agenda.

4.1 An emerging but fragmented and interdisciplinary field

Our review confirms that there is still relatively limited research on digitalization and leadership in schools (Krein, 2023; Wollscheid et al. 2025). However, the upward trajectory indicated by the earlier reviews proved consistent for the period between 2014 and 2024, reflecting the increasing integration of technology with educational systems. This marked increase emphasizes the recognition of digital school leadership as a critical component in enhancing educational change and development. Nevertheless, given the wide range of journals, in which these studies are published, as also noted by Wollscheid et al. (2025), and the tendency for research in this area to appear in journals broadly addressing education and ICT, education, and leadership, rather than specialized leadership or school leadership journals, our findings underscore the interdisciplinary nature of the field. We conclude that research on digitalization and school leadership still appears fragmented. However, this fragmentation primarily reflects the field's interdisciplinary character and its emergence at the intersection of the established domains of ICT, education, and leadership. It reveals both the richness of the field and the challenges in creating cohesive knowledge regarding digital school leadership.

4.2 Geographically skewed

The geographical distribution of studies has not been systematically addressed in earlier reviews (e.g., Krein 2023, Wollscheid et al. 2025), but our analysis shows that it is an important dimension for obtaining an overview of the field. Most studies are conducted in Europe, particularly in Scandinavian countries (e.g., Agélii Genlott et al., 2023; Siljebo, 2024; 2025), and Asia (e.g., Raman et al., 2019; Thannimalai and Raman, 2018). A possible explanation is that these countries exhibit extensive coverage of digital technology in schools. There is also a noticeable skew in the geographical distribution of quantitative studies, as most of such studies have been conducted in regions such as Southeast Asia and the Middle East (e.g., A’mar and Eleyan, 2022; Berkovich and Hassan, 2025). Simultaneously, as the research streams show, qualitative studies are more frequently conducted in Europe and North America (e.g., Sterrett and Richardson, 2020; Tømte and Smedsrud, 2023), often adopting case-based or theory-intensive approaches with a high degree of contextual sensitivity involving how national and organizational conditions shape school leaders’ digital practices and strategic priorities. Thus, research is primarily conducted within national contexts, with little exploration of digitalization beyond national boundaries.

The current predominance of quantitative approaches in Asia and qualitative approaches in Europe and Northern America leads to an asymmetry in empirical and contextual coverage. It limits generalizability and transferability, leaving findings context-specific and fragmented. Although a few existing studies provide valuable insights into national and policy context (e.g., Siljebo, 2024) and the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., AlAjmi, 2022; Palau et al., 2024) serving as a shared point of reference, there is a need for comparative and cross-sectional studies within coordinated research programs that systematically investigate digitalization and school leadership in different cultural, economic, and political contexts. Especially, the field would benefit from research including studies from the global south.

4.3 Prevalence of conventional methods

The prevailing methodological approaches in the field are either qualitative or quantitative; however, both remain largely conventional. There has been little methodological development in the field since Krein's (2023) review. Within a digital context, this represents a notable gap in how the field aligns its methodological approaches with the very phenomena it seeks to understand. There is limited use of more innovative and digitally attuned approaches such as “media go-along” interviews (e.g., following school leaders as they use digital tools in real time), digital ethnography (e.g., tracing leadership practices in learning management systems, email communication, or digital platforms), or experience sampling methods that can capture leaders’ technology-related decision-making and sense-making in situ (Van Berkel et al., 2017). In addition, mixed methods designs remain underutilized, even though they would allow for triangulation of log data, survey responses, and qualitative insights, and thereby enable more multidimensional explorations of how digitalization shapes school leadership in everyday practice.

4.4 Limited practice-oriented and longitudinal insights into digital school leadership

It is striking that most studies provide only limited contextual description, resulting in a rather generalized portrayal of the settings in which they are conducted. As visible in the research streams, they simply provide snapshots of digitalization and school leadership in a digital society (e.g., Rauseo et al., 2023; Primahendra et al. (2024). Only a few studies rely on data from concrete technology implementation projects (e.g., Håkansson Lindqvist, 2019; Mårell-Olsson and Bergström, 2018). Thus, research provides relatively limited insight into the practical enactment of digitalization and digital school leadership, making it problematic for transferability for both researchers and practitioners. Practice-oriented or enactment perspectives on digital school leadership together with studies investigating specific empirical contexts focusing on detailed challenges and how digital school leadership is enacted would enrich the field. Moreover, given that school leadership is widely characterized as a dynamic and evolving process (e.g., Karakose et al., 2021; Willermark and Islind 2023), it is surprising that there is limited research that tracks how digitalization influences leadership practices educational settings over time. This points toward a particular need for longitudinal research.

4.5 Ambigous complexity in digital school leadership

Many articles included in this scoping review center on the responsibilities of school leaders in driving digital transformation, neglecting the considerably complexity inherent in leading schools within a digitally mediated society (e.g., Håkonsson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019; Ruloff and Petko, 2021). Although the overarching message in the literature is that digital leadership in schools is inherently associated with managing high levels of complexity, this complexity is often treated as a general condition. Few studies undertake closer examination of the specific factors that constitute or contribute to this complexity. So far, complexity and challenges are mainly thematized as aspects to consider when measuring or assessing level of the digitalization a school has reached. Complexity is consistently discussed as a central theme, but few studies engage with it in a substantive or analytical way. There is a clear need for further studies, such as that by Heffernan and Selwyn (2023), that deconstruct the sources of complexity in digital school leadership and examine the contradictions, personal challenges, and dilemmas school leaders face in the context of digital leadership.

A consequence of not unpacking this complexity is that responsibility for digitalization risks being framed as resting solely on the individual leader. In practice, there is a clear tendency to individualize both responsibility and capacity for change. School leaders are often portrayed as the main agents of digital transformation, with personal attributes such as attitudes, skills, and digital competence emphasized as key factors, or linked to the broader context of policy and society. This focus on individuals or a small number of people overlooks the organizational and collective dimensions of school life. As a result, it contributes to an understanding of digitalization as something that individual leaders are responsible for realizing, organizing, and leading. Such an understanding does not necessarily reflect how digitalization actually unfolds in complex educational environments where multiple levels of governance and infrastructure interact.

This calls for employing more comprehensive leadership frameworks and theories that enable approaches not focusing on a single leader. Such approaches could address the ambiguity associated with new technologies, for example, how school leaders deal with uncertainty, openness, and the lack of clear answers that accompany digital innovations. There is also a need to clarify who, and at what organizational level, is responsible for establishing and maintaining routines and structures around new technologies.

It could also be noted that surprisingly few studies explicitly draw on theoretical frameworks that address how complex challenges can be managed in digitalization processes. This omission is paradoxical, considering the well-established traditions within organizational and leadership research that specifically engage with such complexities. We argue that research of digital leadership in schools would benefit substantially from the integration of perspectives such as sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995) and learning organization research (Argyris and Schön, 1978), which offer lenses to better capture the practical realities and complexity of digital leadership.

4.6 From technology-orientation to sociocultural aspects

The present review shows a shift in main themes in the field. Krein (2023) found that “integration and use of digital devices” (p. 9) including implementation of technology was the main theme in articles published 2000 to 2020. We see how these issues continue to appear in articles between 2014 and 2024; however, they are not addressed as a main theme. Rather, they emerge as subthemes within broader discussions of the multiple roles and responsibilities that constitute the complex reality of school leadership in digital contexts. This finding aligns with the conclusions drawn by Wollscheid et al. (2025), indicating less focus on technology per se in recent studies. One explanation might be the geographical focus of the research: that most of the studies have been conducted in Europe and Scandinavia, where the integration of digital technologies in schools is already well-established. This means that schools have progressed to more advanced phase of digitalisation by shifting focus from technology integration towards deeper systematic, organisational or pedagogical changes indicating transformation (Hinings et al. 2018, Zhao et al., 2020).

Moreover, most studies concentrate on the relationship between school leaders and teachers, examining how digital school leadership influences or facilitates teachers’ technology integration, pedagogy, collaboration, communication, and professional development (e.g., Clarke and Triegaardt, 2022; Dagli et al. 2023;). We can observe a shift in the research on digital school leadership from technology-orientation to a stronger emphasis on human and relational aspects. Thus, the sociocultural dimensions that Krein (2023) identified as missing in earlier research are now beginning to appear. Nevertheless, there remains a noticeable lack of research addressing governance aspects. We therefore call for more studies that investigate how school leaders interact with actors at the organizational mid-level, governance structures, school owners, regional administrative bodies, and policy.

4.7 The unclarity of digitalisation

Notably, over half of the examined studies did not provide a clear, explicit definition of either digitalization or digital transformation. As Krein (2023) also criticizes, the concepts are employed as universally understood, perhaps, taken too much for granted, which can lead to neglecting the need for rigorous conceptual clarification or justification of why these processes necessitate changes in school leadership. Consequently, an implicit understanding of digital transformation rather than a rigorous, theoretically grounded explanation of what the concept entails within pedagogical and organizational contexts is often presented. There are certain analytical risks to this. First, unclear understanding can lead to ambiguities achieving a stronger agency capacity than digitalization and digital transformation. As a result, schools focus more on managing, organizing, and passing on uncertainty than on pursuing broader goals for how digital technologies should support pedagogy and organizational development, a contradiction pointed out in New Institutional theorizing in organizational research (March et al., 1976; March et al., 1958; Weick, 2001).

Second, this mentioned unclarity may hinder cross-study comparability and weakens the transferability of findings. This is particularly pressing in international research contexts, where digitalization may refer to different phases—ranging from initial technology integration to more profound systematic, organizational, and transformational phases. However, we are not arguing for the need of researchers to agree on a certain understanding for digitalization or digital transformation but without definitional precision, the terms risk being interpreted inconsistently across diverse educational settings, which we contend should be avoided. Similar to Krein (2023), we also emphasize the need for greater conceptual clarity when defining key concepts.

4.8 The paradox of digital school leadership

Our review also finds a paradoxical approach to digital leadership. It is both undefined and somewhat defined. More precisely, digital school leadership appears to be conceptually underdefined, but methodologically prefigured. Our assessment is that digital school leadership remains insufficiently defined, lacking a unified or fixed definition. It can be regarded as a multifaceted concept. However, different leadership styles are a clear theme across the articles. In attempting to position and make sense of digital leadership, researchers often draw on established leadership theories and approaches commonly used in organizational and leadership studies (e.g., Baroudi, 2026; Berkovich and Hassan, 2025; Ruloff and Petko, 2021).

In contrast, when digital leadership is viewed through the studies’ research designs, we find that two knowledge logics emerge, and the designs researchers choose clearly shape underlying understandings – a predefined, expectation-oriented logic and a situated, practice-oriented logic. First, the predefined, expectation-oriented logic appears in studies that employ technology or digital leadership frameworks. Typically, such frameworks outline and detail expectations for what digital leaders should do, including operational roles, responsibilities, and capabilities, meaning they have, to a certain extent, knowledge domains and skills. Such frameworks are applied in studies, often to measure correlations, assess the effects of performance on action, or applied as an analytical lens. These studies often build on an assumption that digital leadership capabilities, competences, attitudes, or predefined dimensions can be linked to favourable conditions for digital transformation. The second understanding, however, approaches digital school leadership through situated, experience- and practice-based ideas about how school leaders work. This knowledge logic shows, foremost, the complex and chaotic everyday experiences of being a school leader and that leadership in practice is demanding, negotiated, and complex. Moreover, it situates digital school leadership as embedded in larger systems and processes.

Thus, even though digital school leadership is not yet clearly defined, it is evident that it is complex. This complexity stems from the fact that digital school leadership emerges as a new form of leadership, necessitated by ongoing digitalization and shaped by broad, systemic changes initiated by technological development or by external actors and stakeholders influencing the education sector through policy interventions, mechanisms of control, or governance strategies. These pressures may compel schools to adapt and school leaders to act. We recommend additional systematic research on how school leaders themselves define and understand digital school leadership.

4.9 Suggested research agenda

Drawing on the gaps identified in this review, we suggest a research agenda aimed at advancing the field of digitalization and school leadership. First, there is a call for practice-based research efforts that explore how digital leadership is practiced and enacted across various cultural, economic, and political contexts. Research should also attend more closely to real-life situations of school leaders, focusing the practical challenges they face and their situated responses. Second, research should focus on governance aspects: the interplay, as well as the role and impact, of policy documents and governance on school leaders and digital school leadership and explore how policy frameworks and governance structures shape the conditions, expectations, and constraints under which school leaders make decisions about digitalization and transformation. Third, there is a need for research employing theories that go beyond individual conceptions of leadership to emphasize the complex and often contradictory nature of digital leadership. Fourth, research should explore school leaders’ interactions with meso-level actors, such as school owners, regional administrators, and policy makers, which shape what leaders can and cannot do. Fifth, future studies should apply more diverse and innovative methodological approaches, including mixed methods, comparative and cross-sectional designs that can contribute to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted complexity of digital school leadership. Longitudinal studies are particularly needed to understand how digital leadership develops over time. Sixth, we call for a clarification of key concepts like digitalization, digital transformation, and digital school leadership. They should be explicitly defined and understood, especially from the perspective of school leaders themselves, to ensure contextual relevance across studies and enhance conceptual coherence.

Looking beyond current research gaps pointed out above, there is a need for deeper research into how school leaders manage and lead virtual or online schools, often including more flexible approaches to teaching. Another topic that requires critical investigation is the growing power and influence of EdTech companies in shaping what constitutes quality teaching and learning, often promoting technology-deterministic views and defining educational standards. Finally, the EU's research and innovation agenda, Industry 5.0, which emphasizes a human-centered approach, sustainable digital solutions, and collaboration, is likely to influence future education policy and leadership and is an area to be explored.

5 Conclusion

The research field on digitalization and school leadership is growing but still fragmented and spread over many journals. There is geographical bias of studies with mainly qualitative studies in Scandinavia and USA and quantitative studies in Asian countries. Conventional quantitative and qualitative research methods are used while comparative and longitudinal approaches are missing. The studies address general settings and provide snapshots with only a view examining concrete cases and going into depth. Also, complexity in digital school leadership is commonly addressed without unpacking it and analysing aspects or the causes of it. Therefore, we suggest a research agenda that includes practice-based research efforts; analyses of the role of policy documents and governance; the use of (e.g., organizational) theory to unpack complexity; more diverse and innovative methodological approaches, especially longitudinal and comparative research; and conceptual clarity.

Concerning the understanding of digital school leadership, it can be regarded as a complex phenomenon, and existing research highlights the wide range of tasks that school leaders are expected to manage. Digital school leadership can be understood and conceptualized from situated, practice-based, or systemic perspectives. Together, these perspectives underscore that digital school leadership should go beyond individual leadership capacities such as traits and skills; it is relational, context-dependent, and embedded in wider social, organizational, and technological systems.

To conclude, we underscore the need to critically unpack both the ambiguity surrounding digitalization and the complexity inherent in digital school leadership, both in practice and research.

6 Limitations

In this scoping review, we excluded grey literature and conference papers and focused solely on peer-reviewed journal articles. While this decision was made to ensure a certain level of quality and transparency in the studies included, it means that relevant insights from, for example, practice-oriented reports or research presented at conferences are not captured. Thus, our review therefore likely underrepresents such work. Furthermore, we limited our search to studies published in English. This is a substantial constraint in a field where digitalization and school leadership are strongly shaped by local, national, and linguistic contexts. Research published in other languages may conceptualize digitalization differently, operate with distinct policy frameworks, or highlight culturally specific leadership practices that are not visible in English-language publications. As a result, our findings may disproportionately reflect perspectives from Anglophone and English-publishing contexts and may not fully capture the diversity of experiences and approaches in non-English-speaking countries.

References

• 1

  Agélii GenlottA.GrönlundÅVibergO.AnderssonA. (2023). Leading dissemination of digital, science-based innovation in school—a case study. Interact. Learn. Environ.31 (7), 4171–4181. 10.1080/10494820.2021.1955272

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  Al NuaimiH.AhmadS. Z.KhalidK. (2024). The importance of the school principals’ role in the digital transformation of the education sector. Int. J. Comp. Educ. Dev.26 (1), 17–37. 10.1108/IJCED-05-2023-0044

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AlAjmiM. K. (2022). The impact of digital leadership on teachers’ technology integration during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait. Int. J. Educ. Res.112, 101928. 10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101928

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  A’marF.EleyanD. (2022). Effect of principal’s technology leadership on teacher’s technology integration. Int. J. Instr.15 (1), 781–798. 10.29333/iji.2022.15145a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  ArarK.TliliA.SalhaS.SaitiA. (2025). Rethinking school leadership and policy in the digital AI era. Leadersh. Policy. Sch.24 (1), 1–3. 10.1080/15700763.2025.2454098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  ArgyrisC.SchönD. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  ArkseyH.O'malleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.8 (1), 19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BaroudiS. (2026). Leading in times of crisis: evidence of digital transformational leadership among arab female educational leaders. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ.29 (2), 236–257. 10.1080/13603124.2022.2108506

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  BerkovichI.HassanT. (2025). Principals’ digital transformational leadership, teachers’ commitment, and school effectiveness. Educ. Inq.16 (2), 177–194. 10.1080/20004508.2023.2173705

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health11 (4), 589–597. 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  BraunV.ClarkeV. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns. Psychother. Res.21 (1), 37–47. 10.1002/capr.12360

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  ChenJ.KouhsariM. (2025). Demystifying the personal and social forces behind school digital transformation: an analysis of the job demands and resources theory through school leaders. Comput. Educ.228, 105232. 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105232

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  ChengE. C. K.WangT. (2023). Leading digital transformation and eliminating barriers for teachers to incorporate artificial intelligence in basic education in Hong Kong. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell.5, 100171. 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100171

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  ClarkF. J.TriegaardtP. (2022). Future-fit leaders for future-fit schools: principal narratives of leading rural primary schools for 4IR imperatives. Perspect. Educ.40 (4), 296–311. 10.38140/pie.v40i4.6812

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  DagliG.MuhtarogluM. B.BastasM.AltinayF.AltinayZ. (2023). Evaluation of primary school managers’ duties in digital transformation. Rev. Gestão Secret.14 (9), 15227–15249. 10.7769/gesec.v14i9.2524

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  DexterS. (2008). “Leadership for IT in schools,” in International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, eds. J. Voogt and G. Knezek (New York, NY: Springer), 543–554.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  Doğan, İ (2018). Examination of the technology leadership self-efficacy perceptions of educational managers in terms of the self-efficacy perceptions of information technologies (malatya province case). Particip. Educ. Res.5 (2), 51–66. 10.17275/per.18.9.5.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  EngeströmY. (2015). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. 2nd Edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  GhavifekrS.WongS. Y. (2022). Technology leadership in Malaysian schools: the way forward to education 4.0–ICT utilization and digital transformation. Int. J. Asian Bus. Inf. Manag. (IJABIM)13 (2), 1–18. 10.4018/IJABIM.20220701.oa3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  GibsonJ. J. (1977). “The theory of affordances,” in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, eds. R. Shaw, and J. Bransford (Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 67–82.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  Håkansson LindqvistM. (2019). School leaders’ practices for innovative use of digital technologies in schools. Br. J. Educ. Technol.50 (3), 1226–1240. 10.1111/bjet.12782

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  Håkansson LindqvistM.PetterssonF. (2019). Digitalization and school leadership: on the complexity of leading for digitalization in school. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol.36 (3), 218–230. 10.1108/IJILT-11-2018-0126

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  HeffernanA.SelwynN. (2023). Mixed messages: the enduring significance of email in school principals’ work. Aust. Educ. Res.50 (2), 255–273. 10.1007/s13384-021-00486-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  HiningsB.GegenhuberT.GreenwoodR. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: an institutional perspective. Inf. Organ.28 (1), 52–61. 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  KarakoseT.PolatH.PapadakisS. (2021). Examining teachers’ perspectives on school principals’ digital leadership roles and technology capabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability13 (23), 13448. 10.3390/su132313448

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  KarakoseT.PolatH.TülübaşT.DemirkolM. (2024). A review of the conceptual structure and evolution of digital leadership research in education. Educ. Sci.14 (11), 1166. 10.3390/educsci14111166

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  KhalilH.TriccoA. C. (2022). Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem. J. Clin. Epidemiol.149, 175–182. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  KilcoyneA. (2026). Navigating through disruption: how are school principals leading digital learning in secondary schools in Ireland. Comput. Sch.43 (2), 150–168. 10.1080/07380569.2024.2374262

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  KreinU. (2023). What’s your take on school leadership and digitalization? A systematic review of publications from the last 20 years. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ., 1–22. 10.1080/13603124.2023.2237939

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  LeontievA. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  LuckinR. (2010). Re-Designing Learning Contexts. Technology-Rich, Learner-Centred Ecologies. London: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P.ChristensenS.CohenM. D. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Vol. 37. Bergen: Universitetsforl.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  MarchJ. G.SimonH. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  Mårell-OlssonE.BergströmP. (2018). Digital transformation in Swedish schools—principals’ strategic leadership and organisation of tablet-based one-to-one computing initiatives. Seminar.Net14 (2), 174–187. 10.7577/seminar.2978

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  MenonM. E. (2025). Transformational school leadership and the COVID-19 pandemic: perceptions of teachers in Cyprus. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh.53 (2), 339–356. 10.1177/1741143223116651

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  Navaridas-NaldaF.Clavel-San EmeterioM.Fernández-OrtizR.Arias-OlivaM. (2020). The strategic influence of school principal leadership in the digital transformation of schools. Comput. Human. Behav.112, 106481. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106481

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  NilsberthM.LiljekvistY.Olin-SchellerC.SamuelssonJ.HallquistC. (2021). Digital teaching as the new normal? Swedish upper secondary teachers’ experiences of emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 crisis. Eur. Educ. Res. J.20 (4), 442–462. 10.1177/14749041211022480

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.MoherD.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.et al (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 372 (2021), n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  PalauR.SantiagoR.FretesG.MogasJ.CebriánG. (2024). The vision of Spanish schools in post-pandemic times. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res.23 (2), 94–112. 10.26803/ijlter.23.2.5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  PetersenA. L. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of principals’ ICT leadership. Contemp. Educ. Technol.5 (4), 302–315. 10.30935/cedtech/6132

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  PetersM. D. J.GodfreyC. M.KhalilH.McInerneyP.ParkerD.SoaresC. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Implement.13 (3), 141–146. 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  PetterssonF. (2018). Digitally competent school organizations: developing supportive organizational infrastructures. Seminar.net: media. Technology and Lifelong Learning14 (2), 132–143. 10.7577/seminar.2976

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  PrimahendraR.PurbaJ. T.UgutG. S. S.BudionoS. (2024). The influence of transformative learning, affective commitment, digital transformation, capability dynamic, ambidexterity, and education policy toward educational leadership: a case from Indonesia. Rev. Gest. Soc. Ambient.18 (8), e05979. 10.24857/rgsa.v18n8-037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  RamanA.ThannimalaiR.IsmailS. N. (2019). Principals’ technology leadership and its effect on teachers’ technology integration in 21st century classrooms. Int. J. Instr.12 (4), 423–442. 10.29333/iji.2019.12428a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  RauseoM.HarderA.Glassey-PrevidoliD.CattaneoA.SchumannS.ImbodenS. (2023). Same, but different? Digital transformation in Swiss vocational schools from the perspectives of school management and teachers. Technol. Knowl. Learn.28 (1), 407–427. 10.1007/s10758-022-09631-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  Reis-AnderssonJ. (2024). Leading the digitalisation process in K–12 schools—the school leaders’ perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol.29 (3), 2585–2603. 10.1007/s10639-023-11935-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  ReyesC. V. (2015). How do school leaders navigate ICT educational reform? Policy learning narratives from a Singapore context. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ.18 (3), 365–385. 10.1080/13603124.2014.982200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  RichardsonJ. W.WattsJ. L. D.SterrettW. L. (2021). Challenges of being a digitally savvy principal. J. Educ. Adm.59 (3), 318–334. 10.1108/JEA-10-2020-0215

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  RuloffM.PetkoD. (2021). School principals’ educational goals and leadership styles for digital transformation: results from case studies in upper secondary schools. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ.28 (2), 422–440. 10.1080/13603124.2021.2014979

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  SiljeboJ. (2024). Made in Sweden? Configured digitalized school leadership practice. J. Educ. Policy39 (1), 149–165. 10.1080/02680939.2022.2156620

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51

  SiljeboJ. (2025). ‘We have-we had a digital debt’: a case of digitalized school leadership practice. Learn. Med. Technol.50 (4), 513–527. 10.1080/17439884.2023.2301099

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  SterrettW.RichardsonJ. W. (2020). Supporting professional development through digital principal leadership. J. Organ. Educ. Leadersh.5 (2), 4. https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/joel/vol5/iss2/4

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  TanucanJ. C. M.NegridoC. V.UyticoB. J.WiderW. (2023). Socio-demographic determinants of Filipino school leaders’ digital leadership. Int. J. Educ. Pract.11 (4), 871–885. 10.18488/61.v11i4.3541

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54

  ThannimalaiR.RamanA. (2018). The influence of Principals’ technology leadership and professional development on teachers’ technology integration in secondary schools. Malaysian J. Learn. Instr.15 (1), 203–228. 10.32890/mjli2018.15.1.8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 55

  TømteC. E.SmedsrudJ. H. (2023). Governance and digital transformation in schools with 1:1 tablet coverage. Front. Educ.8, 1164856. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1164856

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 56

  TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O'BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.et al (2018). PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med.169 (7), 467–473. 10.7326/M18-0850

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 57

  Van BerkelN.FerreiraD.KostakosV. (2017). The experience sampling method on mobile devices. ACM Comput. Surv.50 (6), 1–40. 10.1145/3123988

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 58

  WeiL. M.PiawC. Y.KannanS. (2017). Relationship between principal technology leadership practices and teacher ICT competency. MOJEM Malaysian Online J. Educ. Manag.4 (3), 13–36. 10.22452/mojem.vol4no3.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 59

  WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations (Vol. 3, No. 10.1002). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 60

  WeickK. E. (2001). Making Sense of the Organization. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 61

  WillermarkS.GellerstedtM.NilssonP. (2024). Surviving or thriving? Exploring school leaders’ perception of initiated digital transformation. Sch. Lead. Manag.44 (3), 228–250. 10.1080/13632434.2023.2282618

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 62

  WillermarkS.IslindA. S. (2023). Adopting to the virtual workplace: identifying leadership affordances in virtual schools. J. Workplace Learn.35 (9), 22–37. 10.1108/JWL-05-2022-0052

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 63

  WohlfartO.WagnerI. (2023). Teachers’ role in digitalizing education: an umbrella review. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.71 (2), 339–365. 10.1007/s11423-022-10166-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 64

  WollscheidS.TømteC. E.EgebergG. C.KarlstrømH.FossumL. W. (2025). Research trends on digital school leadership over time: science mapping and content analysis. Educ. Inf. Technol.30 (1), 747–778. 10.1007/s10639-024-12909-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 65

  ZhaoM.LiaoH.-T.SunS.-P. (2020). “An education literature review on digitization, digitalization, datafication, and digital transformation,” in 6th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2020); 2020 Apr 10–12; Hangzhou, China, eds. DuX.HuangC.ZhongY. (Atlantis Press), 301–305.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 66

  ZhongL. (2017). Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. J. Educ. Technol. Dev. Exchange10 (1), 27–40. 10.18785/jetde.1001.03

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article