You are on page 1of 27

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013 889915

doi:10.1111/bjet.12103

e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age of educational


technology research

Jill Jameson

Professor Jill Jameson is professor of Education and Director of the Centre for Leadership and Enterprise, Faculty of
Education and Health, School of Education, University of Greenwich. Author of five books and numerous papers, Jill
is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, fellow of the Institute for Learning and the Chartered Management Institute,
with a PhD and MA (Kings College), MA (Goldsmiths), MA and BA Hons (Cambridge), PGCE (Nottingham) and
BA, and PG Dip (UCT). Chair of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), Jill was co-chair of ALT-C
2008. Address for correspondence: Prof Jill Jameson, University of Greenwich, Mansion House, Bexley Road,
Eltham, London SE9 1PQ, UK. Email: j.jameson@gre.ac.uk

Abstract
A discussion of the relative lack of research into e-leadership in educational technology in
education is followed by an outline of selected prior literature in the field. The paper
proposes that, as part of a natural evolution of educational technology research,
considerably more attention needs to be focused on research and development in
e-leadership. Building on selected prior literature, an updated framework of principles for
effective e-leadership of educational technology is proposed, with specific reference to
higher education, building on selected insights derived from e-leadership literature and
on the authors experience of 30 years of professional practice, scholarship and research
into educational technologies and leadership in education. The paper proposes the devel-
opment of a new fifth age of educational technology research in which it is argued that
more critical, selective, strategic e-leadership approaches to the adoption and use of
educational technology need to be progressed through research, development and train-
ing as the field matures.

Introduction
In the gradual evolution of the field of educational technology in higher education during the
past 40 or so years, e-leadership issues have been more or less overlooked in the research litera-
ture. In the somewhat sparse emerging wider literature on e-leadership, there is a consensus
that its development as an overall concept (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Avolio, Kahai and Dodge, 2000;
Gurr, 2004), and specifically as the phenomenon of e-leadership applied to educational technol-
ogy, is still at an early introduction/elaboration stage (Gurr, 2004, 2006; Tan, 2010; Yee, 2000).
This is a nascent stage that Gurr advises is characterised by considerable conceptual ambiguity
(Gurr, 2004, p. 113), despite the rapid proliferation of technological innovation, e-learning and
social media developments in education over the past several decades. Most at issue is the question
of whether the e in e-leadership is really necessary or can just be subsumed by the more
generally accepted term leadership. Building on the work of prior researchers identified in the
review below, this paper argues that the term e-leadership is not only necessary but is vital in
order that leaders, managers and staff in higher education and indeed across all education phases
can recognise the importance of adapting to the exponentially increasing changes occurring in
education as a result of educational technology advancements.
2013 British Educational Research Association
890 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic
e-Leadership has been defined by a number of researchers, and it is in practice more or
less understood in organisational contexts, even if rarely researched and applied.
Selected research literature exists on theory and practice involving the interdiscipli-
nary fields of e-leadership, educational technology and education.
A small number of reviews of the research literature exist, including reports on
empirical studies carried out in the field of e-leadership, and several of these include
frameworks or other recommendations on e-leadership skills.
What this paper adds
This paper proposes a new fifth age of educational technology research to include
critical, selective and strategic approaches to the adoption and use of educational
technology including, in particular, e-leadership and the related fields of e-
management and e-governance applied to educational technology. For this fifth age, I
am proposing that the field of e-leadership is a key element.
This paper provides a new framework of e-leadership skills and knowledge required in
the application of e-leadership to educational technology in higher education. There is
very little literature on e-leadership in higher education, and this paper suggests a new
focus for that gap in research.
This paper traces multiple sources of research and scholarship on e-leadership,
reviewing the literature from extensive searches in the field and bringing these
together into a framework of references for the benefit of researchers.
Implications for practice and/or policy
There are profound implications for both practice and policy. Despite the enormous
growth of new innovations in educational technology affecting millions of people and
thousands of educational institutions, an insignificant amount of attention is paid to
the leadership of research and professional practice in the field. I argue that this has to
change at both the practice and policy levels in order to improve the implementation of
effective educational technology innovation for the benefit of students.
As part of these new recommendations on e-leadership, I propose that significantly
more research is carried out in the field so that it begins to mature.
I also propose that, based on the framework of e-leadership knowledge and skills, a
programme of training and professional development in e-leadership should be widely
developed so that leaders at all levels learn about e-leadership in educational technol-
ogy and are encouraged and supported to achieve these targets.

A veritable tsunami of digital learning and teaching advancements has emerged in recent years
and is now available to education, including diverse learning environments, cloud computing,
social media platforms, tablet and mobile learning apps, digital portfolios, crowdsourcing facili-
ties, wikis, blogs, podcasts, video conferencing, massive open online courses (MOOCs), new geo-
graphic information systems, wearable technology, virtual labs, gamification, 3D printing and
learning analytics, to name but a few (Allen, Bracey & Pasquinig, 2012; Briggs, 2013; Tondeur,
Devos, Van Houtte, van Braak & Valcke, 2009). Yet the take-up of these technological innovations
in education has not, on the whole, been accompanied by critical reflection, professional devel-
opment and research on the educational technology leadership and management functions that
2013 British Educational Research Association
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 891

ideally should accompany effective implementation of learning technologies innovation in edu-


cational provision. This lack of leadership development is observed despite the fact that Kearsley
and Lynch concluded from their study on technology leadership in schools nearly 20 years ago
(Kearsley & Lynch, 1994) that:
. . . teachers and administrators are not being properly prepared to promote and manage technology in
schools. This conclusion is based upon the many cases where technology is inappropriately or ineffectually
used and by the almost complete absence of any specific training focused on technology leadership. There is
a critical need to establish training programs for teachers and school administrators in technology leader-
ship. (Kearsley & Lynch, 1994, p. 13)
Sadly, Kearsley and Lynchs conclusions about the critical need for training in technology lead-
ership are still highly relevant across most of the world today, not just in industry and in schools,
but across all phases of education including, in particular, higher education.
This paper considers the emerging field of e-leadership applied to educational technology, with
specific reference to higher education, in which there is relatively little prior research. The paper
identifies selected examples of literature, providing an analysis of the emergence of research into
e-leadership overall and also within education. The paper proposes the development of a new fifth
age of educational technology research and professional practice, building on Winns concept of
the four ages of research within the field (Winn, 2002). In this fifth age, it is argued that more
critical, selective and strategic approaches to the adoption and use of educational technology need
to beand indeed arguably are beinggradually put forward as the field matures. The paper
proposes that, as part of this natural evolution of the field, considerably more attention is needed
on research and development in e-leadership and the related fields of e-management and
e-governance applied to educational technology. Building on selected prior literature, an updated
framework of principles for effective e-leadership of educational technology is proposed, with
specific reference to higher education, building on selected insights derived from the existing
e-leadership literature and on the authors experience of more than 30 years of professional
practice, scholarship and research into both educational technologies and leadership in education.
The paper therefore addresses, at an introductory/elaboration stage of theoretical analysis (Gurr,
2006), the relative gap in research literature and inquiry that bridges the two fields of knowledge
of educational technology and leadership. This area of academic research may be termed
e-leadership (Avolio et al, 2000; Gurr, 2004) or eleadership but is also variably described in
education as educational technology leadership (Kearsley & Lynch, 1994), Edtech leadership
(Hsu, Hung and Ching, 2013), information and communications technology (ICT) leadership
(Yee, 2000), [school or other] technology leadership (Anderson and Dexter, 2000, 2005; Tan,
2010), virtual or digital leadership, online leadership, IT leadership (Hollingworth & Mrazek,
2004), leadership of virtual teams (Cascio & Shurygailo, 2003; Hambley, ONeill and Kline, 2007),
leadership of online communities (Jameson, 2011), online facilitation and numerous other vari-
ations in the description of the function of educational technology leadership. Although these
terms are not strictly equivalent, for the purposes of this introductory/elaboration stage of review,
the terms were treated as indistinctly overlapping in meanings, given the emerging nature of the
field. Future research reviews will benefit from distinguishing more particularly between these
various concepts, but at this stage of elaboration, alternative terms are outlined in parallel for
inclusivity.

Background
At this stage of outlining the interdisciplinary edges of a focus on e-leadership in educational
technology, it is important to identify that the many scholarly educational research and profes-
sional communities that span the liminal edges bordering the two fields of educational technol-
ogy and leadership do not, for the most part, relate to or recognise each others work very much.
2013 British Educational Research Association
892 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

These somewhat different kinds of academic, research and professional communities do not, on
the whole, attend each others conferences or belong to each others learned societies, do not
carry out research that bridges both fields, do not publish papers in the same journals or, for the
most part, read each others research findings.
Yet this paper argues that, as the field of educational technology matures into the next phase of its
development, there is a crucial need to bridge interdisciplinary gaps, in so far as it is useful to
consider the effective strategic and operational analysis and implementation of the secondary
supportive functions that are fundamental in underpinning and supporting the primary educa-
tional technology function of learning and teaching with technologies. The ultimate beneficiaries
of the developing fifth age of educational technology research are the students, staff bodies and
organisations for whom and through which all education is delivered, bearing in mind the
recommendations of prior research on the importance of leadership in improving educational
outcomes, as noted by Firestone and Riehl (2005) and Louis et al (2010), for example, that
leadership is second only to classroom instruction as an influence on student learning (Louis et al,
2010).
Given the relative absence of e-leadership as a named identifiable phenomenon in either educa-
tional technology or leadership research, notably in higher education, it seems that issues relating
to this function, even where they are identified, may be invisibilised or subsumed within wider
subjects of study (such as within the general fields of research into leadership, management,
governance and administration applied to education, whether within the field of educational
technology or not). This somewhat puzzling lack of recognition of the critical importance of
e-leadership within educational technology contexts occurs not only throughout most scholarly
and research literature but also within much professional practice in education. It is as if there is an
impenetrable wall that separates discussions on leadership from those on educational technology,
the latter field being mainly relegated to specialistsusually lower down or outside the main
hierarchy of institutionswho are perceived to be tecchies or learning technology enthusiasts.
This can lead to a Fred in the Shed or Lone Ranger syndrome of the isolated educational technology
specialist innovator taking on expert technology leadership individually, as described by Stiles and
Yorke (2007). As yet, as Marshall (2010) notes of the introduction of educational technology
changes in higher education, [i]n the absence of strong leadership, technologies are simply used as
vehicles to enable changes that are already intended or which reinforce the current identity
(Marshall, 2010, p. 179). Garrison and Vaughan (2013) developed Marshalls arguments to put
forward their own views about the lack of critical reflection regarding the need for leadership of
blended learning innovations in higher education, saying that:
While blended learning is common to higher education, it has not resulted in organizational change that
significantly enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of the teaching and learning transaction. In analyzing
change and technology in higher education, Marshall (2010) makes the observation that there is little
evidence of critical self-reflection despite the obvious affordances of information and communications
technology. Institutions have relied too often on the early adopter, but have failed to provide systems and
environments that result in wider adoption of successful ideas (Marshall, 2010, p. 31). Critical self-
reflection must begin with using the experiences of students and faculty to frame institutional change
associated with learning technologies. In this regard, the key element to institutional change is strong
leadership. (Garrison & Vaughan, 2013, p. 24)

In effect, leadership, management and governance issues appear on the whole to be either
perceived as irrelevant to, or ignored by, educational technology researchers who regard the
real focus of the field to be the delivery of the primary function of learning technology-focused
enhancements in learning and teaching. Possibly, e-leadership issues are assumed to be self-
evident, unimportant or superfluous to research focused on pedagogy, learning environments,
learning design or e-learning innovation in the curriculum, for example. Researchers may
2013 British Educational Research Association
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 893

assume that negligible investigation into e-leadership is necessary, in comparison with the
need for research into more immediately pertinent learning-focused educational topics such as
instructional design, the effectiveness or not of various teaching methods online, the develop-
ment and use of particular kinds of software, the implementation of e-learning innovations,
the growing use of social media, new mobile applications and other uses of learning technologies,
and tools and software in or in relation to the classroom. Yet as Barwick and Back (2007) note of
the rather disastrous effect on inept college leadership of one controversially critical but innova-
tive blog in higher education:
There are a number of new technologies appearing in higher education and, although a great deal of
attention is paid to how these new technologies are used to educate, little attention is paid to the leadership
opportunities these technologies create. In contrast to the way they are presented in the educational media,
blogs are an enabling technology that actually serve as magnifiers of communication, increasing the speed,
distance, and intensity of the information transmitted. Barwick and Back (2007, p. 28)

We can trace the history of this attention gap in both the research literature and professional
practice of educational technology through more than two decades. Winn discussed the rationale
and theoretical basis of educational technology in 1989, declaring that in his view, instructional
design was . . . the hub around which everything else in our field [educational technology] revolves
(Winn, 1989, pp. 3536). As a result of this strong alignment of focus on instruction/learning,
educational technology research overall has during past decades tended to be preoccupied princi-
pally with classroom-based studies relating to the primary educational functions of teaching and
learning with technology, rather than with other significant, albeit secondary, background phe-
nomena in education such as leadership, management and governance. This is not really surpris-
ing. Logically, a research focus on educational technologies would tend initially to refer mainly to
first order activities in the field, such as the benefits, problems and innovative learning potentials
directly associated with the use of educational technology in teaching and learning activities
involving students and teachers, whether these activities involve wholly online, blended learning
or face-to-face interactions in the classroom, lecture theatre or in virtual communities.
This relative limitation in initial focus has arguably been of some benefit within the field and can
be perceived as a natural restriction in the establishment of an emerging research area, which
then might later be characterised by relaxation and expansion processes spanning outwards and
deepening as a field matures. For example, the evolutionary development of research in educa-
tional technology has been characterised by Winn (2002, 2003) as a four-stage process that has
encompassed: (1) the first age of educational technology research, in which an instructional
design focus emphasised mainly content, its aim primarily being for educational technology
effectively to emulate good practice in teacher-based instruction; (2) the second age of differen-
tiated message design focused on format, the aim at this stage being to cater for differential kinds
of student learning needs through the use of available variations in media format; (3) the third
age, in which simulation was pre-eminent, enabling a focus on learner control, interaction,
scaffolding of student learning and constructivist principles; and (4) what Winn described in
2002 as the current age of educational technology research, in which the centre of attention
has been on technology-supported artificial learning environments, on distributed cognition
and on the social nature of learning in communities (Wenger, 2000). Building on Winns analy-
sis, we may also perceive that these four ages are not necessarily cast forever into a fixed one-
way linear progression in time but could be both evolutionary in historical field terms and also
simultaneously concurrently existing in the sense that educational technology researchers may
individually at any time still be preoccupied with research that fits into any one of these ages.
In a more recent review of trends in research literature on educational technology, Hsu et al
(2013) analysed journal papers derived from six major journals in the field from 2000 to
2013 British Educational Research Association
894 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

2010 using text mining in a Knowledge Discovery in Databases approach to examine the content
of papers in the following Social Science Citation Index-indexed top 50 journals:
The British Journal of Educational Technology
Computers & Education
The Journal of Educational Technology and Society
Educational Technology Research & Development
Innovations in Education and Teaching International
The Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
From their analysis of the development of trends in educational technology research across the
11 years of datasets, from these papers, Hsu et al (2013) noted that:
EDTECHs [educational technologys] definition has evolved over the years as a variation of ways of dealing
with learning processes (Ely, 1963), a conceptual framework (Davies and Schwen, 1971), theory and
practice (Seels and Richey, 1994), and the latest study and ethical practices of dealing with technological
processes and resources (AECT 2007, in Januszewski and Molenda 2007). (Hsu et al 2013, p. 686)
Hsu et al (2013) qualified Winns findings to observe that, in their view, instructional design and
simulation/interactions are still hot topics in the field in view of the fact that it is the pedagogical
use of technology and the effectiveness of instructional/learning strategies in achieving intended
learning outcomes that constantly concern researchers and educators in educational technology
and result in prolific research studies (Hsu et al 2013, p. 700).
Nevertheless, as the field of educational technology has matured during past decades, its focus
has arguably matured and widened to begin to include more mention of second-order activities,
particularly where these have a direct, important impact on first-order operations. In that wider
focus behind front-line educational technology delivery, there exists a range of complex back-
ground functions in education such as educational leadership, governance, management,
finances, human resources, management of information systems, administration, educational
policy, quality assurance, facilities and estates management, marketing, and public relations in
education. In higher education, we could also argue that there is a specific need for academic
leadership of research and enterprise management, collegiality, virtual team leadership for inno-
vative projects, and an entrepreneurial networking approach to knowledge generation and
knowledge transfer.
These kinds of often relatively invisible but nevertheless essential services and systems in education
arguably continuously operate to create the essential background conditions for success or failure
in the first-order delivery of educational technologies for learning and teaching. To use a perfor-
mance metaphor, behind the stage of each classroom, there exists a host of intricate operations
that the actors and audiences in the performance of learning and teaching (the teachers, students,
parents, communities and others) do not tend to notice. Amongst this array of activities, it can be
argued that leadership in education is the most influential of all, literally often having the power, at
vice chancellor/principal or governance levels, to keep open or shut down the classroom.
From the leadership practised effectively or not by educational policy makers through to that
of principals, vice chancellors or chief executive officers, through senior managers to middle
managers, junior managers, classroom teachers, careers advisers, student support officers and
student representatives, educational leadership exists at every level, invariably influencing and
shaping students learning outcomes in important ways. Arguably, capable e-leadership should
exist at every level too, across almost all of these functions.

Method
The paper reports on a review of prior research into e-leadership in educational technology
and closely related concepts to provide an updated overview of the field from which a framework
2013 British Educational Research Association
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 895

of e-leadership skills for educational technology in higher education was devised. Five stages of
research were carried out, as outlined below.
Firstly, an exhaustive brainstorming open-ended series of searches was undertaken and repeated
over some months using a wide range of search engines for research publications and reports
using the search terms e-leadership, eleadership, leadership of educational technology, educa-
tional technology leadership, higher education technology leadership, leadership AND education
AND technology as well as e-leadership of educational technology in higher education, educa-
tional technology leadership in higher education, and leadership AND higher education AND
technology. Searches were undertaken using Google Scholar, Google, ERIC, Scopus, ScienceDirect,
Harzings Publish, Perish and a number of journal publications databases including Emerald,
Taylor and Francis, and Wiley Blackwell. This scattergun approach brought up a number of key
papers on e-leadership, which are included in Table 7 of the Summary of Findings. At this stage of
the research, business-focused and school-focused papers that did not mention higher education
such as those by Avolio et al (2000) were included to gain an overall impression of the extant
e-leadership research literature in the field. Numerous research papers were collected together to
form a preliminary database of publications on e-leadership.
Secondly, a period of exploratory open-ended reading, skimming and scanning through this
literature was carried out, which established key concepts that prior researchers had identified to
form part of the synthesis forming the framework of e-leadership characteristics.
Thirdly, a second round of intensive searching was undertaken from time to time over a period
of 2 years, using Google Scholar, to investigate the relationship between e-leadership and lead-
ership, and the extent to which there was a emergent growth in publications and consultation
reports in the fields of both e-leadership and leadership research, as well as educational technol-
ogy research. In 2012 and 2013, the term e-leadership produced 5610 Google scholar search
results (August 2013), compared with 5210 (February 2013) and 4620 (June 2012). Most of
these results related more directly to generalised leadership issues than to e-leadership of educa-
tional technology. By contrast, removing the e in a search on leadership provided 2 450 000
results (August 2013), compared with roughly 2 330 000 (February 2013) and 2 320 000
results (June 2012), a comparable number to a Google Scholar search for educational technology
itself, for which there were roughly 2 540 000 (August 2013), 2 400 000 (February 2013) and
2 430 000 (June 2012) results (see Figure 1). Further searches for e-leadership/eleadership,
virtual leadership, online leadership, web-leadership, leadership of educational technology,
internet-leadership and related phrases were carried out on Twitter in June 2012, January 2013
and August 2013 producing sparse results, most of which related to leadership development
courses or leadership practices delivered online. These results were discarded.
Fourthly, a more intensive, highly focused period of searching through specific formal research
databases for peer-reviewed papers was undertaken and the results collated in the following tables
(see Tables 16). The electronic databases consulted were ERIC, Academic Search Premier,
including Educational Research Complete, Scopus, Harzings Publish and Perish (with Google
Scholar filter), and ScienceDirect. A review of the papers from all phases of the research was
carried out. References were also included from papers identified in all search phases using a
snowballing method. Thirty-two papers were collected together to form emerging salient points
from the most significant of the key references: these were summarised in Table 7: Findings and
discussed in the text.
Fifthly, the papers that had been gathered together were analysed for the inclusion of key
characteristics that researchers recommended for e-leaders/technology leaders as applied to the
context of educational technology. These factors were compared and analysed, and a framework
2013 British Educational Research Association
896 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

Figure 1: e-Leadership Google Scholar Search Results Relative to Other Terms June 2012-August 2013

of e-leadership characteristics was drawn up (see below). Finally, recommendations from the
framework were summarised for the concluding section.

Limitations
The paper collects together and cites key papers from the field of e-leadership and educational
technology, with reference to higher education, but in view of journal paper space limitations,
it is of necessity a position piece and selective review rather than a comprehensive review of
all potentially relevant publications in the field. The difficulty with an emerging as yet relatively
undefined field such as e-leadership is that a very tight focus on only this named concept reveals
exceptionally few peer-reviewed publications (eg, 04), but a wider focus using a range of other
search terms or a completely open search on one key term brings in a huge range of publications,
including many that are wholly irrelevant (eg, 5610 results on Google Scholar were listed for
e-leadership in August 2013, including results in which the word leadership is preceded by the
Italian term e leadership, meaning and leadership or by the English abbreviation i.e., as in,
i.e. (that is), leadership. To sift through and differentiate between the vast number of publications
that border this field in many directions is too large a task for a short journal paper. Therefore, this
review is of necessity limited and to some extent subjective in selectivity, beyond the initial range
of papers identified by the major literature search engines used.
The paper is also limited in not providing empirical findings from investigative research into
e-leadership in educational technology in higher education. The reason for this restricted choice
in focus is that the author perceived a strong need for an updated literature review in this
exploratory area and regarded that as the most valuable contribution at this time.
2013 British Educational Research Association
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 897

Table 1: ERICopen search across all dates

e-leadership AND Three results, one discarded, ie, paper by Strom, Sanchez and Downey-Schilling
higher education (2011) has a focus on general school/community college leadership, not
AND educational technology specific.
technology 1. McPherson, M.A., Nunes, J.M. (2008) Critical Issues for E-Learning Delivery:
What May Seem Obvious Is Not Always Put
into Practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
2. Jameson, J., Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S. and Ryan, M. (2006) Building Trust
and Shared Knowledge in Communities of E-Learning Practice: Collaborative
Leadership in the JISC eLISA and CAMEL Lifelong Learning Projects. British
Journal of Educational Technology.
e-leadership and 3. The above three papers plus King, Frederick B., LaRocco, Diana J., 2006
educational E-Journaling: A Strategy to Support Student Reflection and Understanding.
technology Current Issues in Education
Paper discounted as it has a focus on e-journals rather than e-leadership and
educational technology.
Issues with search Nonea helpful interface for searching

Findings
e-Leadership research: literature search findings
A series of focused formal searches for prior research on e-leadership and related concepts in
educational technology in higher education settings were carried out using scholarly bibliographic
databases. The results are reported below (see Tables 16) according to the database consulted.

ERIC
A search using ERIC educational research resources (see Table 1) was made for all papers
using an open search across all dates for the terms e-leadership AND higher education AND
educational technology. An additional further search was then carried out using the terms
e-leadership and educational technology. A total of four papers from both searches were
obtained, of which two were discounted as the focus was irrelevant. The remaining two papers
were included in the findings table.

Academic search premier/educational research complete


The search using Academic Search Premier, including Educational Research Complete, was
carried out across all databases and all dates to widen the scope in a realistic yet focused way
in an area in which there was not much prior research. The terms e-leadership AND higher
education AND educational technology were searched across all abstracts, achieving no results.
An additional further search was carried out using the terms technology leadership AND higher
education AND educational technology again across all abstracts. A total of four papers from the
second search were obtained, of which three were discounted as the focus was irrelevant. The
remaining paper was included in the findings table.

Swetswise
The search using Swetswise bibliographic database was carried out in an open way, including
all dates. The terms e-leadership AND higher education AND educational technology were
searched across all abstracts, achieving no results. An additional further search was carried
out using the terms technology leadership AND higher education AND educational technology,
again across all abstracts, and again achieving no results. Finally, a further search was carried out
using the terms leadership AND higher education AND educational technology across all fields.
A total of eight papers from the third search were obtained, of which two were discounted as they
were book/project reviews. The remaining six papers were included in the findings table.
2013 British Educational Research Association
898 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

Table 2: Academic search premier: all databases including Educational Research Complete

e-leadership AND higher No results


education AND
educational
technology in
abstracts
technology leadership Four results, two discounted as educational leadership and educational
AND higher education technology were treated as separate subjects, leaving:
AND educational 1. Sahin, I. (2005) Understanding Faculty Adoption of Technology using the
technology in Learning/Adoption Trajectory Model: A Qualitative Case Study. Turkish
abstracts Online Journal of Educational Technology. Jan 2005, 4 (1): 7584.
Paper discountedsingle case study approach focused on one teacher rather than
wider focus on e-leadership and educational technology was not particularly
relevant for the review.
2. Barwick, D.; Back, K. (2007) High techs double edge: creating
organizationally appropriate responses to emerging technologies. On the
Horizon, 15, (1): 2836.
Issues with search Problems attempting to use smart search to find more papers: the system
read the e in e-learning as equivalent to e-leadership and hence
returned many papers that were irrelevant. Abandoned smart search.

Table 3: Swetswise: all fields search across all database subject areas

e-leadership AND higher No results


education AND
educational technology
basic search
technology leadership AND No results
higher education AND
educational technology
basic search
leadership AND higher Eight results, of which two reviews (book review and project) were
education AND excluded: listed according to relevance:
educational technology 1. Fraser, K. (2007) Educational development and leadership in higher
all fields search education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (1): 179
2. Gomes, W. (2011) Leadership in educational technology: Insights from
the corporate world. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4 (4): 5760
3. Radda, H. T. (2011) Transformative educational technologies: An
interview with Chris Dede. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4 (4 ): 5153
4. Van Rooij, S.W. (2010) Project management in instructional design:
ADDIE is not enough. British Journal of Educational Technology,
41 (5): 852864
5. Gayle, D. J., Bhoendradatt Tewarie, B., White, A. Q. (2003) ASHE Higher
Education Reports, 30 (1): 1132
6. McPherson, M. A. and Nunes, J. M. (2008). Critical issues for
e-learning delivery: what may seem obvious is not always put into
practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 433-45.
Issues with search System did not allow a refined level of filtering, eg, at keyword level, as is
possible with some search engines.

2013 British Educational Research Association


e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 899

eleadership: 15 1084 24

Cites Authors Title Year


287 BJ Avolio, S Kahai, GE Dodge E-leadership: Implicaons for theory, research, and pracce 2001
203 WF Cascio, S Shurygailo E-leadership and virtual teams 2003
155 EH Schein Cultura d'azienda e leadership 1990
117 BJ Avolio, SS Kahai Adding the E to E-Leadership:: How it May Impact Your Leaders 2003
107 SJ Zaccaro, P Bader E-Leadership and the Challenges of Leading E-Teams:: Minimizin 2003
58 BJ Avolio, S Kahai, R Dumdum Virtual teams: Implicaons for e-leadership and team developm 2001
23 NK Hanna e-Leadership instuons for the knowledge economy 2007
21 D Gurr* ICT, Leadership in Educaon and E-leadership 2004
21 DQ Mills, JC Helms Mills, C Fors e-Leadership 2001
19 ML Pulley, VI Sessa E-leadership: tackling complex challenges 2001
17 ML Pulley, J McCarthy, S Taylor E-leadership in the networked economy 2000
16 S Annunzio, J Liesse eLeadership: proven techniques for creang an environment of s 2001
16 GD Kissler E-leadership 2001
15 ML Pulley, V Sessa, M Malloy E-Leadership: A Two-Pronged Idea. 2002
9 HK Yuen, RMK Fox, NWY Law Curriculum innovaons and mul-level e-leadership requireme 2004

Figure 2: Citation analyses e-leadership: Scopus; Harzings Publish and Perish, 2013

Harzings publish or perish


An early search carried out for citation data on e-leadership using Harzings Publish or Perish
software is included in Appendix 1 as Figure 2. A subsequent search using Harzing with a Google
Scholar filter was carried out for all words, including all dates (see Table 4) for the terms
eleadership AND higher education AND educational technology. This resulted in three papers, of
which one was discounted as it had a history subject focus. An additional search was carried out
using the terms technology leadership AND higher education AND educational technology for all
of the words, again across all dates, achieving four results, of which two were discounted as the
subject areas were separated.
A further search was then carried out using the terms e-leadership AND educational technology
AND higher education for all of the words. One hundred thirty papers were returned, most of
which were not directly relevant, as word recognition was not particularly refined in Harzing/
Google Scholar. A trawl of the results flagged up one review paper, which, although about schools,
resonated with the current study, and was therefore included in the summary of findings.
Finally, a further search was carried out using the term eleadership without inverted commas,
for any of the words. There were 20 results, of which 10 were excluded as they were not
peer-reviewed or not in English, were a consultancy report or otherwise irrelevant, leaving 10
publications as appended in the table below to demonstrate citation counts. A total of eight papers
from the third search were obtained, of which two were discounted as they were reviews. The
remaining six papers were included in the findings table.
Sciverse science direct
The search using Sciverse Science Direct was carried out for all of the words, including
all dates (see Table 5 below). The terms eleadership AND higher education AND educational
technology were used, with no results. An additional search was carried out using the terms
e-leadership AND higher education AND educational technology for all of the words in title,
abstract, keywords, again across all dates, achieving two results, of which one was discounted as
it was focused on healthcare. There were some issues with the return of results in which the e in
e-leadership was identified by the system as a separate word in addition to leadership. Hence, a
general search on e-leadership returned 102 863 papers for ALL (e-leadership), with 16 243
2013 British Educational Research Association
900

Table 4: Harzings Publish or Perish 4: Filtered Google Scholar search


eleadership AND higher education Three results of which one was discounted as it has a history subject focus:
AND educational technology: all of 1. Chang, I.H., Chin, J.M. and Hsu, C.M. (2008) Teachers Perceptions of the Dimensions and Implementation of Technology Leadership of Principals in Taiwanese
the words. Elementary Schools. Educational Technology & Society, IFETS. 19 Citations
2. Bertoncini, G.T. and Schmalz, M.T. Whats on your mind? Understanding the Influence of Social Media on Authentic Leadership Dimensions and Education from
the Millennials Perspective. 0 citations.
Second research report discountedMasters report, unpublished.
technology leadership AND higher Four results, two discounted as educational leadership and educational technology were treated as separate subjects.
education AND educational 1. Sahin, I. (2005) Understanding Faculty Adoption of Technology using the Learning/Adoption Trajectory Model: A Qualitative Case Study. Turkish Online Journal of
technology: all of the words Educational Technology. Jan 2005, 4 (1): 7584.
As abovepaper discounted: single case study approach focused on one teacher rather than wider focus on e-leadership and educational technology was not particularly relevant for
the review.
2. Barwick, D.; Back, K. (2007) High techs double edge: creating organizationally appropriate responses to emerging technologies. On the Horizon, 15 (1): 2836.
e-leadership and educational A total of 130 papers returned, most of which were not directly relevant, as the word recognition is not refined. However, the following review paper, although about

2013 British Educational Research Association


technology and higher education: all schools, resonated with the current study and was therefore included:
of the words McFarlane, A., Bradburn, A. and Agnes McMahon, A. (2003) E-Learning for Leadership: Emerging indicators of effective practice. A review of literature carried out for NCSL:
National College of School Leadership.
Eleadership: any of the words A total of 20 results, of which 10 were excluded as not peer reviewed, not in English, consultancy report or otherwise irrelevant, leaving 10 publications as appended
in the table below to demonstrate citation counts.

Cites Authors Title Year Source Publisher ArticleURL GSRank Type


British Journal of Educational Technology

287 BJ Avolio, S Kahai, E-leadership: Implications for theory, 2001 The Leadership Quarterly Elsevier http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ 2
GE Dodge research, and practice article/pii/S104898430000062X
203 WF Cascio, S Shurygailo E-leadership and virtual teams 2003 Organizational Dynamics Pergamon 3 CITATION
117 BJ Avolio, SS Kahai Adding the E to E-Leadership:: How it 2003 Organizational Dynamics Pergamon 4 CITATION
May Impact Your Leadership
107 SJ Zaccaro, P Bader E-Leadership and the Challenges of 2003 Organizational dynamics Pergamon 1 CITATION
Leading E-Teams:: Minimizing the
Bad and Maximizing the Good
58 BJ Avolio, S Kahai, Virtual teams: Implications for 2001 How people evaluate . . . books.google.com http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr 5
R Dumdum . . . e-leadership and team development =&id=Rizcl-SEMJMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA337
&dq=eleadership&ots=W2tHZeThBD&sig
=OowCR6inJ1NSRJlSXmtSFfn8xKs
21 D Gurr* ICT, Leadership in Education and 2004 Discourse: studies in the Taylor & Francis http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 6
E-leadership cultural politics. . . 10.1080/0159630042000178518
19 ML Pulley, VI Sessa E-leadership: tackling complex 2001 Industrial and Commercial emeraldinsight.com http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals 9
challenges Training .htm?articleid=838266&show=abstract
17 ML Pulley, J McCarthy, E-leadership in the networked economy 2000 Leadership in Action Jossey-Bass 13 CITATION
S Taylor
16 GD Kissler E-leadership 2001 Organizational Dynamics Pergamon 14 CITATION
15 ML Pulley, V Sessa, E-Leadership: A Two-Pronged Idea. 2002 T+ D ERIC http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/ 15
M Malloy recordDetail?accno=EJ642518
Issues with Search engine is not easy to refine for subject areas. A search on e-leadership and educational technology and higher education (include all the words) without inverted commas returned more than
search 1000 results, almost all of which were irrelevant, including business, e-business and school programmes.
Vol 44 No 6 2013
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 901

Table 5: Sciverse Science Directsearch across all dates

eleadership AND No results


higher education
AND educational
technology
e-leadership AND Two papers, one irrelevant as focused on healthcare, leaving:
higher education 1. Welle-Strand, A. and Thune, T. (2003) E-learning policies, practices and
AND educational challenges in two Norwegian organizations, Evaluation and Program
technology in Planning, 26 (2): 185192.
Title-Abstr-Keywords
Issues with search System returned the e in e-learning as a separate term in addition to
leadership, so that a general search on e-leadership returned 102 863
papers for: ALL (e-leadership), with 16 243 papers found for: ALL
(e-leadership AND educational technology AND higher education).
Numerous of these were irrelevant. However, a trawl through the results
revealed a number of interesting papers, which are included in the
analysis below.

papers found for ALL (e-leadership AND educational technology AND higher education). Numer-
ous of these were irrelevant. However, a trawl through the results revealed a number of interest-
ing papers, which are included in the analysis below.
Results brought together and analysed
The results from all searches were brought together and analysed into a summary of findings
which mapped relevant prior e-leadership research in higher education and beyond within the
general field of education and educational technology into a summary of literature (Table 6) and
a framework of e-leadership skills for higher education (Table 7). Given the paucity of papers on
research into higher education e-leadership, it was decided to widen out the scope of this mapping
to include selected otherwise relevant e-leadership research from other phases of education and
research which in selected instances used different identifiers for e-leadership such as technology
leadership, virtual team leadership and ICT leadership.
Discussion
The extensive searches, review of literature and summary of findings revealed that although
leadership as a general area of research study remains highly significant and is growing in quantity
and impact, it is also contested, variable in quality and highly differentiated in its application
to educational technology. Leadership research has increased in diversity, subtlety and intricacy
as the field has adapted to include leadership perspectives on complexity theory that view
organisations as complex adaptive systems rather than fixed top-down bureaucracies (Avolio,
Walumbwa & Weber, 2009; Uhl-Bien, Marion & McKelvey, 2007). In a similar manner, the fields of
educational leadership and educational technology have also greatly expanded, developing
increasingly complex sub-fields in response to the rapid growth of diverse new learning technology
tools and platforms now available to education. e-Leadership research in education, by contrast,
has barely emerged into public recognition as a research concept within the recognisable surface of
scholarly endeavour, judging by its still thin citation counts (see findings from literature searches
above). Although it is important to add the cautionary note that neither citation data nor peer-
reviewed journal searches provide a full picture of publications for this or any field in social sciences
and technology, on the whole research studies in e-leadership appear to be surprisingly limited
within the databases available.
Despite this, Kearsley and Lynchs (1994) chapter and book on the leadership of educational
technology provide an early helpful example of an overview of requirements for e-leadership
2013 British Educational Research Association
Table 6: Summary of findings from selected relevant prior e-leadership research
902

e-Leadership study Location/phase/method Findings

Afshari, M., Bakar, K.A., Luan, W.S, Samah, B.A. and Survey involving 30 principals from The survey found a strong correlation between principals competence in
Fooi, F.S. (2009). Factors affecting teachers use of secondary schools in Tehran using computers and their practices as regards transformational rather
information and communication technology. than transactional leadership. Participants also said this would enable
International Journal of Instruction, 2(1), 76104. improvements in the ways that teachers used ICT.
Avolio, B.J., Kahai, S., and Dodge, G.E. (2000) Business: review of literature on Provides a literature review of e-leadership in organisations, proposes a set
E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and e-leadership of recommendations for research on e-leadership and puts forward a
practice. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4): 615668 framework underpinned by AST to measure the interactive influences that
occur between organisational structures, including leadership and AIT in
organisations.

2013 British Educational Research Association


Avolio, B.J. and Kahai S., S.S. (2003) Adding the E to Business: explores e-leadership as a Defines and explores e-leadership in relation to systemic aspects of
E-leadership: How it may impact your leadership. concept leadership in organisations and the ways in which AIT influences and
Organizational Dynamics, 31 (4): 325338 changes these, eg, as regards increasing speed of communication and
augmenting interconnectedness between people.
Anderson, R.E. and Dexter, S. (2005) School School; technology leadership The authors state that technology leadership is better at predicting the
technology leadership: An empirical investigation of outcomes of technology use than (1) the amount that students and
prevalence and effect. Educational Administration teachers use the internet; (2) the extent to which ICT is integrated into
British Journal of Educational Technology

Quarterly, 41 (1): 4982 classroom teaching; and (3) the extent of student use of ICT in the
classroom for academic studies.
Barwick, D., and Back, K. (2007) High techs double Higher education: case study of Examines the leadership challenges and opportunities enabled through the
edge: creating organizationally appropriate responses controversial blog involving academic staff use of new technologies in higher education such as the blog. Only one
to emerging technologies, On the Horizon, 15 ( 1): and senior leadership case study is provided, but the focus is used to make a range of
2836 recommendations about leadership opportunities to respond in
organisationally appropriate ways to new technologies and to build both
communication and trust.
Bowen, E.E., Bertoline, G.R., Athinarayanan, R., Cox, Six participant-scholars collected data The authors report on their qualitative ethnographic research into four
R.F., Burbank, K.A., Buskirk, D.R., and Kknal, from 16 academic institutions and key concepts regarding globalisation and innovation in technology higher
H. (2013) Global Technology Leadership: A Case for industries in Peru, India, Qatar, Germany, education. It proposes global technology leadership as a new discipline via
Innovative Education. Praxis, ProcediaSocial and United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Sri a process of on-site visits for observation and face-to-face interviews with
Behavioral Sciences, 75, (3): 163171 Lanka, Ireland, Kenya, Turkey, China, academic and industry organisations in multiple countries.
Spain and the USA
Cascio, W.F., Shurygailo, S. (2003) E-leadership and Business organisations, virtual teams, Identifies the growth of virtual teams and analyses the challenges of
virtual teams. (2003) Organizational Dynamics, 31 e-leadership virtual team working for e-leaders, including the problems of promoting
(4): 362376 group cooperation, monitoring performance, identifying and boosting the
morale of emergent leaders in teams, setting up processes for archiving
documents, ensuring that staff have a good worklife balance with a
separation between these. Establishing explicit processes for archiving
important written documentation
Vol 44 No 6 2013
Chang, I.H., Chin, J.M. and Hsu, C.M. (2008) Elementary schools in seven cities in The authors find that effective technology leadership is necessary for
Teachers Perceptions of the Dimensions and Taiwan using structural equation schools to carry out technology integration appropriately. A study
Implementation of Technology Leadership of modelling including elementary schools and involving seven cities in Taiwan used
Principals in Taiwanese Elementary Schools. structural equation modelling to test the model for technology leadership
Educational Technology & Society, IFETS by principals. Four concepts are proposed to sum up effective leadership.
Findings include the need for leaders to have good interpersonal and
communication skills and to welcome technology for its benefits.
Garrison, D.R. and Vaughan, N.D. (2013) Higher education: two case studies This paper documents the kinds of changes in institutions and in
Institutional change and leadership associated with leadership that are needed to implement innovations that promote blended
blended learning innovation: learning in higher education. The paper outlines two case studies that
Two case studies. Internet and Higher Education, 18: show how transformational institutional change can be related to blended
2428 teaching and learning innovation. Collaborative leadership involving all
levels of the institution is required to implement these changes effectively.
Gayle, D.J., Bhoendradatt Tewarie, B., White, A.Q. Higher education research report: Examines different conceptions of effective strategic management and
(2003) Governance in the Twenty-First-Century conceptual report on governance. leadership in the university of the C21st. Explores the tensions between
University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and business and academic concepts of the university and the best kinds of
Strategic Management: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education leadership to cope with emerging challenges to higher education.
Report, Association for the Study of Higher Considers the governance needed to run successful universities from the
Education. 30 (1): 1132 point of view of different kinds of stakeholders of higher education.
Gomes, W. (2011) Leadership in educational Corporate reflective report based on Provides a corporate reflective report to propose in brief that educational
technology: Insights from the corporate world. professional experience leaders should undertake the main decision making in relation to the use
Journal of Leadership Studies, 4 (4): 5760 of new technologies in education. Such leaders can use strategic planning
methods to use technology more effectively for improving learning
outcomes for students and achieving a balance in costs and benefits to
maximise these opportunities.
Gurr, D. (2004) ICT,Leadership in Education and Education, e-Leadership, ICT-mediated Gurr argues that e-leadership in education should now be prioritised as
E-leadership. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics environments this field is growing as a concept in business. He argues that e-leadership is
of Education, 25 (1), March 2004: 113124. both necessary and different from traditional forms of leadership, and that
a greater emphasis on effective communication, on the ability to cope with
distributed leadership, and with complexity and uncertainty, as well as a
high level of interpersonal skills should be highlighted as regards ICT
leadership competencies. He argues that there are important differences
between e-leadership and traditional leadership and that there is a need
for more research into e-leadership.
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age
903

2013 British Educational Research Association


904

Table 6: Continued

e-Leadership study Location/phase/method Findings

Hadjithoma-Garstka, C. (2011). The Role of the Cyprus, four primary case study schools: Discusses the role of the principal and their leadership style compared
Principals Leadership Style in the Implementation of large-scale survey with other factors that also influence the implementation of ICT
ICT Policy. British Journal Of Educational Technology, initiatives. The style of the principal is personal and related to their private
42(2), 311326. life, not transformational leadership. Outlines the fact that principals need
to be trained. The principals leadership style is seen as personal rather
than a style suited to a changer/transformational model.

2013 British Educational Research Association


Hollingworth, M., & Mrazek, R. (2004) Information Canadian district schools research report, Puts forward eight important areas proposing IT leadership knowledge,
Technology Leadership in Education: An Alberta needs Alberta: survey to district and school skills and attributes for district- and school-level leaders. Together, these
assessment. Learning and Technology Research, leaders: 512 school and district provide a framework for information technology leadership in education,
Stakeholder Technology Branch, Edmonton, Alberta. technology leaders were surveyed. specifically adapted to the Canadian district and to the different levels of
school and district leaders.
Humbly, L., ONeill, T. and Kline, T. (2007) Virtual Canada: undergraduate students, higher Examines transformational and transactional leadership styles using
team leadership: The effects of leadership style and education different communication media on team interaction styles and outcomes
British Journal of Educational Technology

communication medium on team interaction styles in face to face, videoconferencing and text-based chatting. Findings
and outcomes. Organizational Behavior & Human demonstrated that communication media affect team interaction styles
Decision Processes, 103 (1): 120 and group cohesion.
Jameson, J. et al. (2006) Building Trust and Shared UK: higher and further education Discusses two e-learning projects, promoting trust and collective learning
Knowledge in Communities of E-Learning Practice: consortium involving higher education, as important factors in a establishing and maintaining a community of
Collaborative Leadership in the JISC eLISA and schools and colleges e-learning practice at project team level. Analyses the role of good
CAMEL Lifelong Learning Projects. British Journal of leadership and innovation in team performance and outlines a prior model
Educational Technology. 37 (6): 817990 for communities of practice in which collaborative leadership establishes
high trust team working. Proposes two new models for collaborative
leadership of e-learning projects and analyses the role of leadership within
these in lifelong learning project contexts.
Kearsley, G. and Lynch, W. (1994) Educational USA: schools level; conceptual paper Puts forward a framework for technology leadership, stating that this kind
Technology Leadership in the Age of Technology: of leadership is different from other kinds and needs different kinds of new
The New Skills. Part 1: Issues, in Kearsley and Lynch knowledge and skills. States that many attempts to introduce new
(Eds.) Educational Technology: Leadership Perspectives. technologies that have failed would have benefited from realising the
Educational Technology Publications, Inc.: important mission to adjust to and innovate with technology.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Vol 44 No 6 2013
McFarlane, A., Bradburn, A. and Agnes McMahon, UK: National College of School Leadership Provides a literature review to synthesise effective e-learning for
A. (2003) E-Learning for Leadership: Emerging report: schools leadership literature review leadership, outlining an overview of research and practice in this area.
indicators of effective practice. A review of literature Puts forward a model of factors that are important for successful
carried out for NCSL: National College of School e-learning practice. Sums up the purpose of the research in terms of the
Leadership. 11 research questions put forward by the National College for School
Leadership (NCSL), who commissioned the report.
McPherson, M. A. and Nunes, J. M. (2008). Critical UK: Higher education critical research Adopting ICT to enhance learning can be difficult: this research
issues for e-learning delivery: what may seem identifying critical success factors in focus investigated critical success factors for the effective delivery of e-learning
obvious is not always put into practice. Journal of groups of e-learning experts, including in higher education. Staffing, training and sound teaching delivery are
Computer Assisted Learning, 24 (5), 433-45. administrators, educational technologists crucial issues for student learning success. These are also strongly
and researchers reinforced by inspired leadership of the institution. Leaders should also
make sure they set up institutional support that enables staff and students
to be supported and empowered, so that e-learning can be delivered
effectively.
Mohammad, K. (2009). E-Leadership: The Emerging Business enterprises, virtual teams and Outlines the need for e-leadership in terms of the growth of online
New Leadership for the Virtual Organization. Journal organisations working, including digitisation of information. Argues that new forms of
Of Managerial Sciences, 3(1), 121. organisation are being established, called virtual organisations, in which
the way that people interact is mediated through information technology.
Argues that e-leadership is different from prior forms of leadership and
outlines the need for effective interaction between teams.
Tan, S.C. (2010) School technology leadership: K-12 schools: review of empirical studies Uses what Tan argues is the more inclusive term technology leadership in
Lessons from empirical research. In: C.H. Steel, M.J. from the USA, Canada, Singapore, preference to ICT/IT leadership. The paper reviews the evidence from 12
Keppell, P. Gerbic and S.Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, Belgium and Tehran. Relates school empirical reports on the leadership of technology, applying the methods of
technology and transformation for an unknown future. findings to higher education grounded theory and identifying the roles and competencies needed by
Proceedings of the 2010 Australasian Society for technology leaders. Provides a concept map of these and focuses them into
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education four main areas of change, correlating transformational leadership with
(ASCILITE) 2010 Conference, Sydney, Australia. principals ICT competencies. Makes recommendations for future research
in terms of infrastructure, organisational structure and policy, pedagogy,
learning, and school culture.
Tondeur, J., Devos,G.,Van Houtte, M., van Braak, J. Survey of 527 teachers in 68 Belgian The authors found that schools that have both strong cultural and
and Valcke, M. (2009) Understanding Structural and primary schools structural dimensions (eg, leadership support, ICT planning,
Cultural School Characteristics in relation to innovativeness, goal-orientedness, resources support and underlying
Educational Change: The Case of ICT Integration, structure) have enhanced usage of classroom computers at the teacher
Educational Studies, 35 (2): 223235 level and are also better placed to undertake ICT technology integration
compared with schools that are not as strong in such aspects.
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age
905

2013 British Educational Research Association


906

Table 6: Continued

e-Leadership study Location/phase/method Findings

Van Rooij, S.W. (2010) Project management in Higher education project management, The author considers project management skills in higher education in the
instructional design: ADDIE is not enough. British instructional design context of instructional design, finding that the skills involved in project

2013 British Educational Research Association


Journal of Educational Technology, 41 (5): 852864 management should include a working realistic and practical knowledge
of leadership skills and communication as well as interpersonal skills.
Despite barriers and gaps that exist in the sub-cultures in higher
education, project management research and advocacy should be
developed to bridge the divergence that can exist between theory and
practice in instructional design.
Yee, D.L. (2000) Images of school principals Canada, the USA and New Zealand: Provides an in-depth qualitative study on ICT leadership, examining the
British Journal of Educational Technology

information and communications technology principals of 10 schools lived experiences of principals from 10 schools with enhanced ICT
leadership. Journal of Information Technology for facilities in the USA, New Zealand and Canada. Outlines a framework
Teacher Education, (9:3): 287302 proposing eight categories of ICT leadership, with a particular focus on
learning and support.
Zaccaro, S.J. and Bader, P. (2003) E-leadership and Has a focus on eographically separated The authors investigate the ways in which e-teams are coordinated and
the challenges of leading E-Teams: Minimizing the e-teams: focuses on e-leaders of teams integrated, identifying that teams that are far apart geographically and in
bad and miximizing the good Organizational terms of time have additional problems in comparison with face-to-face
Dynamics, 31 (4): 377387 teams. The authors identify the ways in which e-leaders can coordinate
and direct teams that are far apart, building trust between people and
dealing with conflict resolution to enable effective team working. e-leaders
need to be trained and developed appropriately to lead such teams.

AIT, advanced information technology; AST, Adaptive Structuration Theory; ICT, information and communications technology.
Vol 44 No 6 2013
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 907

knowledge and skills. These researchers cite Colliss (1988) table on technology leadership skills,
which acknowledges that five level of skills are required for e-leadership, from the most removed
state level through to district, principal and teacher levels to the most immediate technology
implementation level of expert technology specialist. The authors base their book on the benefits
of good educational technology leadership. Building on that early work, this paper now focuses
on the characteristics of e-leadership/technology leadership that emerged as recommendations
from the literature review.
e-Leadership: virtual relationships of influence
e-Leadership was defined in relation to the field of business and management by Avolio et al
(2000), who utilised this term to specify the relational influences afforded by leadership within
the emergent virtual communication networks of the global knowledge economy. In their view,
e-leadership influences, affected interactively by advanced information and technology (AIT)
organisational systems, have progressively emerged to affect millions of people in profound,
complex ways at a behavioural and systemic level. The definition provided by Avolio et al (2000)
is focused at the individual, group and organisational level, as in the following:
E-leadership is defined as a social influence process mediated by AIT to produce a change in attitudes, feelings,
thinking, behavior, and/or performance with individuals, groups, and/or organizations. E-leadership can
occur at any hierarchical level in an organization and can involve one-to-one and one-to-many interactions
within and across large units and organizations. It may be associated with one individual or shared by several
individuals as its locus changes over time. (Avolio et al, 2000, p. 617)
By contrast, the definition of technology leaders cited by Bowen et al. (2013) is more at an
organisational and global level in keeping with their overall focus on global technology leadership
and its relevance to educational praxis:
Daugherty et al. (in press) proposes a philosophical definition of the technology leader as one who Enables
others to effectively and successfully use, manage, assess, and understand technologies of the designed
world. The technology leader is critical as our complex, global society is increasingly dependent on technol-
ogy. The technology leader is equipped within their particular context to make informed, value-laden
decisions and participate in guiding technological development. (p. 1) (Bowen et al, 2013, p. 164)
The review identified that professional daily interactions between those working in the fields
of educational technology and leadership in education are occurring at multiple formal hierarchi-
cal and informal organisational levels across global virtual communication networks and
groups in a rapid socially emergent influencing process involving both individual e-leaders and
e-leadership at group and systemic levels. This new highly adaptive field of knowledge affects
multiple daily interactions across professional education and training, spontaneously involv-
ing millions of people who use email, interact with social media, blogs, wikis, and other ICT and
social networking facilities regularly both at home and at work. Despite the immense, almost
unfathomably diverse proliferation of technology take-up, it was clear from the review that the
term e-leadership is rarely used and often misunderstood, being mistakenly regarded as identical to
leadership, although it is also sometimes recognised as a strongly emerging field (DasGupta, 2011).
As the literature review revealed, variants of the e-leadership concept include ICT leader-
ship, technology leadership, online leadership, virtual leadership, digital leadership and virtual
team coordination. Innovative approaches to leadership that relate to this technology take-up
include distributed, collaborative, shared, disruptive, quantum, collective and team leadership. As
noted above, the negligible literature in e-leadership paradoxically has been accompanied by the
huge growth of technologically advanced ICT and social networking facilities. Yet that expansion
has meant that e-learning and leadership research now has global implications for developing
improved leadership and management understandings of working within the new socio-cultural
organisational relationships rapidly emerging with the use of advanced information technology-
enabled knowledge exchange. A scholarly model for global technology leadership is therefore now
timely as argued by Bowen et al. (2013).
2013 British Educational Research Association
908 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

As an inevitable response to the massive growth in online interactivity, increasing attention needs
now to be paid to the leadership and management of online virtual communities (Cascio &
Shurygailo, 2008; De Rooij et al., 2007; Handy, 1992; van de Bunt-Kokhuis & Sultan, 2012). Con-
comitant with this, it is important to follow through with the development of research, scholarship
and professional innovation in e-leadership practice. The gradual emergence of e-leadership
requires new theories of leadership and management to accompany technological innovation. As
Avolio et al (2000) point out, Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) enables the realisation that
spontaneous co-evolutionary interactive developments in leadership and technology are concur-
rently occurring to transform organisations, leading to unpredictable new forms of e-leadership
and technological developments within complex adaptive systems (Pulley & Sessa, 2001).
From a leadership business research perspective, Avolio et al (2000) examine the implications
of e-leadership for theory, research and practice, proposing an e-leadership framework based on
AST for the purposes of further research. Avolio et al. state that:
We believe it is perhaps too early to identify any empirically based, systematic, patterned variations or to draw
any broad conclusions about e-leadership. Consequently, the central purpose of this article is to develop a
nomological framework primarily based on DeSanctis and Pooles (1994) Adaptive Structuration Theory
(AST) as a broad basis for guiding future research on e-leadership. According to AST, the effects of AIT emerge
from their interaction with organizational structures of which leadership is a part. Furthermore,
organizational structures, including leadership, may themselves transform as a result of interactions with
AIT. We use our AST-based framework to pool relevant results and suggestions from a diverse array of
literature to provide recommendations for developing a research agenda on e-leadership. (Avolio et al, 2000,
p. 616)

Building on the above call by Avolio et al (2000), this paper argues that there is a need for
e-leadership to emerge and be recognised as a named individual concept in educational technology.
There is a need for this rapidly changing function of leadership not just to be subsumed namelessly
within wider discussions on leadership or management, largely because the process of learning
about and undertaking effective development in e-leadership innovations in education is not
automatic and cannot be guaranteed to be a routine part of leadership, especially in the complex,
uncertain and contested arena of higher education, in which the achievement of successful
innovation is exceptionally challenging at a time of major competition, mass higher education,
marketisation, cuts in funding and relentless student fee increases (Gayle, Bhoendradatt Tewarie &
White, 2003).
Amongst the analyses in the above literature relating to e-leadership of educational technology,
Hadjithoma-Garstkas (2011) paper on principal leadership interestingly highlights the impor-
tance of the deeply personalised influence of effective principals in promoting ICT leadership in
schools, outlining a way forward for leaders in education to rise to the challenge of undertaking
personal learning in e-leadership skills, rather than just delegating this function. The need for
individualised commitment by educational leaders to learning about and practising effective
institutional e-leadership identified by Hadjithoma-Garstka (2011) and also, in detail, by Yee
(2000) at the school level in education is also echoed by Barwick and Back (2007) as well as
Garrison and Vaughan (2013) at higher education levels. Furthermore, the Association for the
Study of Higher Education report (Gayle et al, 2003) on governance in higher education draws
attention to the need for innovative technology leadership to adapt existing leadership and man-
agement practices in higher education to capitalise on information technology opportunities. The
report observes that . . . the implementation of an effective information technology strategy
demands the application of new models of leadership and management (Gayle et al, 2003, p. 10).
These are essential for all fields of endeavour, including both education and business contexts.
Indeed, Avolio et al. (2000) demonstrate that such innovatory changes in leadership are already
inexorably underway in business contexts, given recent rapid advancements in information tech-
2013 British Educational Research Association
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 909

nology, which have become unstoppable (Avolio et al, 2000, p. 617). Hence, to identify the kinds
of e-leadership characteristics required for effective new models of e-leadership in higher educa-
tion, the next section outlines key features of a framework for e-Leadership knowledge and skills.
e-Leadership framework of educational technology skills for higher education
The e-Leadership Framework of Educational Technology Skills for Higher Education builds on
prior literature identified from leadership and educational technology research, building on the
work of Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004) at a school level and that of Tan (2010) for the major
categories identified, as well as the leadership research of Leithwood et al (2004) and Heck and
Hallinger (1999) who group key successful school organisational leadership categories in terms of
the three main areas of purposes, people, and structures and social systems. In adapting and
extending the framework for e-leadership of educational technology in higher education, the
following new terms were included: sense-making in complex adaptive systems, virtual team
leadership, collegiality, trust, academic freedom, diversity and equal opportunities, gender issues,
finance, speed of response, change management, research and enterprise management, presence,
emotional intelligence, empowering others, innovation, risk-taking, distributed leadership,
quality management, monitoring, human resources, and training.
These characteristics were identified from the literature review as particularly necessary for
effective strategic and operational e-leadership at senior, middle and lower hierarchical levels
in higher education in order that collegial and entrepreneurial high trust environments can be
enabled to emerge interactively through the development of technological innovations in tandem
with e-leadership and good communication. The 10 groups of e-leadership characteristics below
are mapped against selected literature identified in Table 7 and also against the concept map of
three main e-leadership attributes in Figure 3 below.
e-Leadership framework characteristics
1. Purpose: e-leadership visioning and strategic planning; meaning making and sense making
in complex adaptive systems of higher education organisations
2. Purpose: learning and teaching, pedagogic leadership
3. People: e-leadership/virtual team leadership of collegiality, organisational values, behav-
iours and culture; trust; academic freedom; social, legal and ethical issues; diversity and
equal opportunities; gender issues
4. Structures and social systems: organisational structure and policy; management, finance
and operations including distributed leadership systems, speed of response and change man-
agement skills
5. People: e-leadership presence, interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence; empowering
others
6. People: communication skills and organisational relations including speed of response; inno-
vation; risk taking; distributed leadership: ownership
7. Structures and social systems: quality management and monitoring; assessment and
evaluation
8. Purpose: research and enterprise management
9. People: human resources, training, productivity and professional practice
10. Structures and social systems: technology, support for infrastructure, problem-solving skills,
information technology skills, innovation, risk taking
Conclusions
Despite the relatively limited research base and lack of papers in e-leadership as reviewed above,
the existing research evidence suggests the following implications for the research and practice of
e-leadership in educational technology contexts:
2013 British Educational Research Association
910 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

Table 7: e-Leadership framework, building on Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004) and Tan (2010)

e-Leadership knowledge and skills identified Research publications

Purpose: e-leadership visioning and Yee [learning-focussed envisioning] (2000); Garrison and
strategic planning; meaning making and Vaughan (2013); Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004); Chang
sense making in complex adaptive (2003); ASHE (2003); Ng [transformative leadership] (2008);
systems of organisations Anderson and Dexter [technology leadership] (2000, 2005);
Yuen et al., [set clear goals and targets] (2003); Gomes (2011);
Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelvey [complexity theory and
leadership] (2007)
Purpose: learning and teaching; Yee [learning-focussed envisioning] (2000); Yee [adventurous
pedagogic leadership technological learning; supportive teaching of teachers and
students] (2000); Schiller [modelling or coaching of staff]
(2002); ASHE (2003); Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004)
People: e-leadership/virtual team Yee [protective enabling; equitable providing] (2000); Zaccaro
leadership of organisational culture, and Bader [trust] (2003); Jameson et al., [trust, teams and
collegiality, values, behaviours; trust; knowledge building] (2006) Tondeur et al., [cultural school
academic freedom; social, legal, and characteristics] (2009); Barwick and Back (2007);
ethical issues; diversity and equal Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004); Drury [gender equality]
opportunities; gender issues (2010); Cascio and Shurygailo, [good communication and
trust in virtual teams] (2008); Handy [trust in virtual teams]
(1992); van de Bunt-Kokhuis and Sultan [trust, servant
leadership] (2012)
Structures and social systems: ASHE (2003); Tan (2010); Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004);
organisational structure and policy; Barwick and Back (2007); Tondeur et al (2009)
management, finance and operations,
including speed of response and change
management skills
PEOPLE: e-leadership presence, Avolio and Kahai (2003); Chan (2003); Barwick and Back
interpersonal skills and emotional (2007); Bienefeld and Gudela [distributed leadership] (2011)
intelligence; empower others
PEOPLE: communication skills and Yee [entrepreneurial networking] (2000); Avolio and Kahai
organisational relations, including speed (2003); Chan [good communication skills] (2003);
of response, innovation, risk taking, Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004); Barwick and Back (2007);
distributed leadership Yee [adventurous learning with technology; careful
challenging] (2000); Gurr [distributive leadership] (2004)
Structures and social systems: quality Yee [constant monitoring] (2000); Barwick and Back (2007);
management and monitoring, Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004); Chang [assessment] (2003);
assessment and evaluation Tondeur et al (2009)
Purpose: research and enterprise Chang [research] (2003); Tondeur et al. [innovativeness and
management, entrepreneurialism goal-orientedness] (2009); ASHE (2003)
People: human resources, training, Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004); Chang [training and
productive development and development] (2003); Schiller [staff development] (2002);
professionalism in practice Afshari [computer competence] (2009)
Structures and social systems: Chang (2003); Yee [equal access to hardware and resources]
technological development, supportive (2000); Schiller [make hardware and software accessible]
infrastructure; problem-solving skills; (2002); Anderson and Dexter [technology leadership] (2000,
information technology skills; 2005); Hollingworth and Mrazek (2004); Barwick and Back
innovation; risk taking (2007); Yee [adventurous learning; careful challenging]
(2000); Tondeur et al (2009)

2013 British Educational Research Association


e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 911

PURPOSES: PEOPLE:
e-leadership visioning e-leadership/ virtual team
strategic planning, leadership, culture; trust,
integrity, collegiality, values
meaning making in
e-leadership presence,
complex adapve system interpersonal skills; EQ
learning and teaching;
communicaon; innovaon;
pedagogic leadership distributed leadership
research management human resources, training,
entrepreneurialism producvity, development
e-leadership of
educaonal
technology in
higher educaon

STRUCTURES AND
SOCIAL SYSTEMS:
organisaonal structure and
policy; management ,
control and operaons
quality management ;
evaluaon; assessment
technology; infrastructure;
problem-solving; innovaon

Figure 3: e-Leadership framework for educational technology in higher education

e-Leadership of educational technology: implications emerging from the literature


1. Very rapid take-up of internet-enabled and other ICT innovations in educational technology,
including email, virtual conferencing, social media usage, MOOCs, blogging, learning
analytics and learning design, to name but a few innovations, is gradually making a crucial
impact on the way leadership is conceptualised and practised across all levels in higher edu-
cation. The complex interaction between leadership and advanced information technology
is both influencing and being influenced by emerging new organisational behaviours linked
with technology in unexpected, multifaceted ways within complex adaptive systems. Leaders
themselves now have many opportunities to develop understanding and skill in communicat-
ing with students and staff to optimise the affordances of learning technologies.
2. However, these developments are largely taking place serendipitously and unexpectedly.
Research, professional development and training in higher education e-leadership skills are
lagging far behind the reality of speedy technological take-up. As yet, e-leadership is barely
identified as an important feature of higher educational institutions, and, when identified, is
almost invariably delegated to lower, albeit specialist, positional levels. Yet the research litera-
ture reviewed demonstrates strongly that there is a need for senior-, middle management- and
2013 British Educational Research Association
912 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

teacher-level strategic leaders to become personally committed to e-leadership as a strategic,


meaning-making function within higher education institutions. This is imperative for mean-
ingful successful technological developments to take place across the institution, beyond an
isolated individual classroom level. There is a potential threat to the existence of higher
education institutions if rapid e-leadership adaption to innovations is not forthcoming.
3. Although undoubted similarities exist across all contexts of leadership, it is clear from the
review of prior research that e-leadership of educational technology in higher education also
now demands additional skills, new understandings and an innovative capacity for rapidly
absorbing, prioritising and responding to new knowledge, selectively dealing with over-
whelmingly high levels of information. These new skills cannot simply be repackaged from
existing leadership attributes as leaders need to be instantly responsive to quicker, highly
complex, emergent adaptive systemic changes in higher education that are currently occur-
ring as a result of technological advances. Advanced capacities are now needed in distributed
and collaborative leadership that blends collegiality with authority, accountability with
quality and innovation, student learning priorities with marketing and finance, and entre-
preneurialism with risk.
4. New e-leadership demands are also emerging for sophisticated levels of interpersonal and
intercultural skills in which the capacity to build high levels of trust in online environments is
now an increasingly essential attribute for successful leadership. Leaders now need to respond
fluently with excellent communication skills to cope with challengingly spontaneous levels of
social media interactivity involving both staff and students in ways that have never previously
been demanded of leaders.
5. e-Leaders also now need to apply rigorous levels of critical analysis, quality standards and
selectivity in discerning the most appropriate institutional innovations, choosing between
myriads of available educational technology opportunities for improved learning and teach-
ing, simultaneously adjusting to emerging trends and catching the wave of innovation while
avoiding unnecessary risks.
6. From the review of literature on e-leadership in educational technology in higher education,
it is therefore recommended that specific professional development and training opportunities
in e-leadership are made available.
7. Finally, significantly greater levels of research into e-leadership across education, but particu-
larly in higher education, are recommended in the development of a fifth age of educational
technology research in education that no longer ignores e-leadership. It is particularly appro-
priate that this should be led from within higher education in the first instance.

References
Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A. & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Technology and school leadership.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18, 2, 235248.
Allen, J., Bracey, P. & Pasquinig, L. (2012). Learning and performance innovation: chapter 2. In
V. C. X. Wang (Ed.), Encyclopedia of E-leadership, counseling and training Vol. 1 (pp. 4864). Hershey PA:
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
Anderson, R .E. & Dexter, S. L. (2000). School Technology Leadership: Incidence and Impact. Teaching, Learning,
and Computing: 1998 National Survey Report #6. Center for Research on Information Technology and
Organizations. University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota. Retrieved September 19,
2013, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_6/report_6.pdf
Anderson R. E. & Dexter S. (2005). School technology leadership: an empirical investigation of prevalence
and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 1, 4982.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (2007). Definition. In A. Januszewski
& M. Molenda (Eds), Educational technology: a definition with commentary (pp. 114). London: Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group.
Avolio, B. J. & Kahai, S. (2003). Adding the E to E-leadership: how it may impact your leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 31, 4, 325338.
2013 British Educational Research Association
e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 913

Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. & Dodge, G. E. (2000). E-leadership: implications for theory, research, and practice.
Leadership Quarterly, 11, 4, 615668.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O. & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: current theories, research, and future
directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421449.
Barwick, D. & Back, K. (2007). High techs double edge: creating organizationally appropriate responses to
emerging technologies. On the Horizon, 15, 1, 2836.
Bienefeld, N. & Gudela, G. (2011). Teamwork in an emergency: how distributed leadership improves decision
making. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting, pp. 110
114.
Bowen, E. E., Bertoline, G. R., Athinarayanan, R., Cox, R. F., Burbank, K. A., Buskirk, D. R., et al (2013).
Global Technology Leadership: a Case for Innovative Education. Praxis, ProcediaSocial and Behavioral
Sciences, 75, 3, 163171.
Briggs, S. (2013). 10 Emerging educational technologies & how they are being used across the globe. Online
blog article at Innovation Excellence. Retrieved August 12, 2013, from http://www.innovationexcellence
.com/blog/2013/07/29/10-emerging-educational-technologies-how-they-are-being-used-across-the
-globe/#sthash.BAZsufYJ.dpuf
Cascio, W. F. & Shurygailo, S. (2003). E-leadership and virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 4,
362376.
Cascio, W. F. & Shurygailo, S. (2008). E-leadership and virtual teams. IEEE Engineering Management Review,
36, 1, 79.
Chang, I. (2003). Assessing the dimensions of principals effective technology leadership: an application of
structural equation modelling. Educational Policy Forum, 6, 1, 111141.
Collis, B. (1988). Computers, curriculum, and whole class instruction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
DasGupta, P. (2011). Literature review: e-leadership. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4, 1, 136. Retrieved
September 19, 2013, from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/vol4iss1/dasGupta
_V4I1_pp1-36.pdf
Daugherty, J. L., Metzner, N. J., Lybrook, D. O. & Little-Wiles, J. (in press). Philosophical perspectives on
technology leadership. Book chapter in press cited by Bowen et al., 2013: 164.
Davies, I. K. & Schwen, T. M. (1971). Toward a definition of instructional development. Paper presented at the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Convention (AECT), Washington,
DC.
De Rooij, J. P. G., Verburg, R. M., Andriessen, J. H. E. & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). Barriers for shared
understanding in virtual teams: a leader perspective. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and
Networks, 9, 6477.
DeSanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive
structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121147.
Drury, M. (2010). You gotta be determined to get in there: voices of women higher education technology
leaders. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 8, 2, 5980. Retrieved August 12, 2013, from http://
www.editlib.org/p/65917
Ely, D. P. (Ed.) (1963). The changing role of the audiovisual process in education: a definition and a glossary
of related terms. TCP Monograph No. 1. AV Communication Review, 11, 1, Supplement No. 6.
Firestone, W. A. & Riehl, C. (Eds) (2005). A new agenda for research in educational leadership. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Garrison, D. R. & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended
learning innovation: two case studies. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 2428.
Gayle, D. J., Bhoendradatt Tewarie, B. & White, A. Q. (2003). Governance in the Twenty-First-Century
University: approaches to effective leadership and strategic management. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report, Association for the Study of Higher Education, 30, 1, 1132.
Gomes, W. (2011). Leadership in educational technology: insights from the corporate world. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 4, 4, 5760.
Gurr, D. (2004). ICT, leadership in education and E-leadership. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 25, 1, 113124.
Gurr, D. (2006). e-Leadership. In S. DasGupta (Ed.), Encyclopedia of virtual communities and technologies
(pp. 161164). London: Covent Garden.
Hadjithoma-Garstka, C. (2011). The role of the principals leadership style in the implementation of ICT
policy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 2, 311326.
Hambley, L. A., ONeill, T. A. & Kline, T. J. (2007). Virtual team leadership: the effects of leadership style and
communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 103, 1, 120.

2013 British Educational Research Association


914 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

Handy, C. (1992). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review (HBR) report:
May/June.
Heck, R. H. and Hallinger, P. (1999). Next generation methods for the study of leadership and school
improvement. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds), Handbook of research on educational administration: a project
of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 141162). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hollingworth, M. & Mrazek, R. (2004). Information technology leadership in education: an Alberta needs assess-
ment. Edmonton, Alberta: Learning and Technology Research, Stakeholder Technology Branch. Retrieved
August 11, 2013, from http://www.uleth.ca/education/sites/education/files/ITL_needs_research.doc
Hsu, Y-C., Hung, J-L., & Ching, Y-H. (2013). Trends of educational technology research: more than a decade
of international research in six SSCI-indexed refereed journals. Educational Technology Research & Devel-
opment, 61, 4, 685705.
Jameson, J. (2011). Leadership of shared spaces in online learning communities. International Journal of Web
Based Communities, 7, 4, 463477.
Jameson, J., Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S. & Ryan, M. (2006). Building trust and shared knowledge in
communities of E-learning practice: collaborative leadership in the JISC eLISA and CAMEL Lifelong
Learning Projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 6, 817990.
Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (2007). Definition. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds), Educational
technology: a definition with commentary (pp. 114). London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kearsley, G. & Lynch, W. (1994). Educational technology: leadership perspectives. Englewoood cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications, Inc..
Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: how leadership
influences student learning. Toronto, University of Minnesota.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K .L., Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., Mascall, B., et al (2010). Learning
from leadership: investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educa-
tional Improvement/University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of
Toronto 42 (50).
Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: are universities capable of organisational
change? Research in Learning Technology, 18, 3, 179192.
McFarlane, A., Bradburn, A. & Agnes McMahon, A. (2003). E-Learning for leadership: emerging indicators of
effective practice. A review of literature carried out for NCSL: National College of School Leadership. Retrieved
August 12, 2013, from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4931/1/e-learning-for-learning.pdf
Mohammad, K. (2009). E-Leadership: the emerging new leadership for the virtual organization. Journal of
Managerial Sciences, 3, 1, 121.
Ng, W. (2008). Transformational leadership and the integration of information and communications tech-
nology into teaching. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17, 1, 114.
Pulley, M. L. & Sessa, V. I. (2001). E-leadership: tackling complex challenges. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 33, 6, 225230.
Schiller, J. (2002). Interventions by school leaders in effective implementation of information and commu-
nications technology: perceptions of Australian principals. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 11, 3,
289301.
Seels, B. & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: the definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC:
Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Stiles, M. & Yorke, J. (2007). Technology supported learning Tensions between innovation, and control and
organisational and professional cultures. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 3, 3,
251267.
Strom, S. L., Sanchez, A. A. & Downey-Schilling, J. (2011). Inside-outside: finding future community college
leaders. Community College Enterprise, 17, 1, 921.
Tan, S. C. (2010). School technology leadership: lessons from empirical research. In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell,
P. Gerbic & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings
of the Ascilite Conference, Sydney 2010: 896906. Retrieved August 11, 2013, from http://www.ascilite
.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Seng_chee_tan-full.pdf
Tondeur, J., Devos, G., Van Houtte, M., van Braak, J. & Valcke, M. (2009). Understanding structural and
cultural school characteristics in relation to educational change: the case of ICT integration. Educational
Studies, 35, 2, 223235.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: shifting leadership from the
industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 4, 298318.
van de Bunt-Kokhuis, S. & Sultan, N. (2012). Servant-leadership: the Online Way! E-learning where com-
munity building is key. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 472, 110. Retrieved September
19, 2013, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ979595.pdf

2013 British Educational Research Association


e-Leadership in higher education: The fifth age 915

Van Rooij, S. W. (2010). Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not enough. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 41, 5, 852864.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 2, 225246.
Winn, W. (1989). Toward a rationale and theoretical basis for educational technology. Educational Technol-
ogy Research and Development, 37, 1, 3546.
Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: the study of learning environments.
Educational Psychology Review, 14, 3, 331351.
Winn, W. (2003). Research methods and types of evidence for research in educational technology. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 15, 4, 367373.
Yee, D. L. (2000). Images of school principals information and communications technology leadership.
Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9, 3, 287302.
Yuen, A., Law, N. & Wong, K. (2003). ICT implementation and school leadership. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41, 2, 158170.
Zaccaro, S. J. & Bader, P. (2003). E-leadership and the challeges of leading E-Teams: minimizing the bad and
miximizing the good. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 4, 377387.

Appendix 1

2013 British Educational Research Association

You might also like