A Systemic Perspective for Understanding Digital Transformation in Higher Education: Overview and Subregional Context in Latin America as Evidence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I liked the article called "A Systemic Perspective for Understanding Digital Transformation in Higher Education: Latin American Context as an Evidence" very much, I think it can contribute a lot to the literature and that is why I think it can be published.

The introduction is well done, including all the points to be covered.

The authors have done a good literature review. The results are very well presented, as well as the discussion and conclusions.
Overall it is an article worthy of publication.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper makes a review on the digital transformation of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Please take into account the following comments:

• ‘…between his components…’ (page 3). Is it a wrong expression? I think it should be ‘…between its components…’
• Main points of the background of digital transformation in higher education look correct, but there is no justification why this list matches well in the area of Latin America and the Caribbean. It was expected that before that, authors make a description of how Latin America and the Caribbean is different than other regions and explain this for all dimensions. For example, c) was explained very well, but the same is not true for all.
• According to the title and aims this research is about Latin America, but the actual content (data) refers to an international context in Higher Education and finally a part of conclusions refer to the ‘Chilean case’ (page 11). Please make a clear distinction on the area of interest.
• Some demographic data and a more detailed description of the participants would be helpful.
• Sometimes it is difficult to separate authors’ voice from the literature (even in data collections)
• It would be clearer if authors could give the exact question in the picture’s legends or in the text, close to the point they interpret results.
• “Particularly, in this chapter we have described…” (page 11) Which chapter?
• On conclusions it wat not very clear what the real challenges are, or which are the factors of ‘resistance’ to change towards a digital transformation in Higher Education.

Overall, the paper has an interesting topic and generally a good use of English, but a focus point is missing, a comparison between the differences in area of interest and the international context may need more interpretation, and the originality of this work need more justification.

Author Response

This paper is a makes a review on the digital transformation of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Please take into account the following comments:

1. ‘…between his components…’ (page 3). Is it a wrong expression? I think it should be ‘…between its components…’

Many thanks for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified according to them.

2. Main points of the background of digital transformation in higher education look correct, but there is no justification why this list matches well in the area of Latin America and the Caribbean. It was expected that before that, authors make a description of how Latin America and the Caribbean is different than other regions and explain this for all dimensions. For example, c) was explained very well, but the same is not true for all.

Thank you for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified accordingly. Contributions were made on the context of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the dimensions of the systemic perspective were deepened in a) b) d) e) f)

3. According to the title and aims this research is about Latin America, but the actual content (data) refers to an international context in Higher Education and finally a part of conclusions refer to the ‘Chilean case’ (page 11). Please make a clear distinction on the area of interest.

Thank you for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified accordingly. The area of ​​interest has been specified in the manuscript, this being Latin America and the Caribbean as a region.

4. Some demographic data and a more detailed description of the participants would be helpful.

Thank you for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified accordingly. Demographic data have been incorporated into the study, also incorporating a table

5. Sometimes it is difficult to separate authors’ voice from the literature (even in data collections)

Thank you for your comments. The writing of the document has been improved in order to separate the voice of the authors from the literature.

6. It would be clearer if authors could give the exact question in the picture’s legends or in the text, close to the point they interpret results.

Many thanks for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified according to them.

7. “Particularly, in this chapter we have described…” (page 11) Which chapter?

Many thanks for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified according to them.

8. On conclusions it wat not very clear what the real challenges are, or which are the factors of ‘resistance’ to change towards a digital transformation in Higher Education.

Many thanks for your comments. Please, see page 9 according to the previous version of the manuscript: “In terms of the scope of the system, respondents were asked about their general perceptions regarding the commitment to widening access to higher education (Figure 2 shows the bar charts of participants’ opinions to these aspects for four answer categories). In terms of the leadership consultation, respondents were questioned with a focus on commitment and the situation for higher education institutions. In this sense, there was a relevant difference between Europe (26% described ‘not at this stage’), and LAC (37% said ‘yes, fully’). Certainly, this consideration suggests that the challenges are not the same among regions (Figure 2”).

Overall, the paper has an interesting topic and generally a good use of English, but a focus point is missing, a comparison between the differences in area of interest and the international context may need more interpretation, and the originality of this work need more justification.

Many thanks for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified according to them (please, see pages 1 and 2.

Reviewer 3 Report

From my point of view, the article has some major imbalances. In general, it is about the authors' attempt to comply with the scientific rigors of an article proposed for publication in the journal Sustainability and to remain imprisoned within the limits of the project mentioned in the content. 

The title proposed by using the expression Latin American context, induces some confusion, the reader expecting a research of this geographical area. It is true that in subchapter 3.2 there is a list of countries but, during the paper, only one entity is used, the Latin American Community (LAC), with some particular references to Chile. But the reality is that this article presents the results of a much larger study, in which LAC is the subject of comparative analysis. 

One of the key words is "cross-cultural". I looked for this expression in the text and I didn't find it and neither "cultural" has too many references.

Even though there are two stated goals throughout the article, there are many statements about research (many objectives stated without being achieved or without being argued):

• “The authors intend identifying main disruptive technologies by shaping them and researching how models and processes of institutions are being transformed, generating deep but somehow fragile changes. From this assertion we describe the challenges, risks, opportunities, and guidelines that universities in Latin America must face to address their own digital transformation.”
• “Correspondingly, the matter of this research is to comprehend whether, the social, organizational, and technological aspects are linked to the interest generated by the digital transformation in higher education institutions”
• “Utilizing this approach, this research explores how the adoption of technologies by universities offers a framework for understanding the digitalization.”
• “Based on a subregional assessment and several criteria including digital maturity, international rankings, and the progress achieved in digital transformation, among others, this initiative included a diagnosis of the current situation of……”
• “This study explains the implementation of digital transformation methodologies all over several countries,”

The methodology is ambiguous: it refers to research carried out on the basis of a project “This research is part of an international project regarding the Open Consultation carried out by the International Association of Universities (IAU) between November 2018 and April 2019 “.

There are no references to the authors' contribution to this research, if it is an analysis of secondary data, to which practically the four phases of the research refer. (proposed in 3.2 Measurement and Data Collection; for e.g. what is more clearly “certification of the results leading to a partial or full qualification”?)

Subchapter 4 contains superficial analyzes (results in percentages) without studying the possible correlations between variables. Some explanations, statements are more difficult to understand: 1) “Regarding the scope of the system, respondents were asked about their general perceptions regarding the commitment to widening access to higher education; 2) In terms of the leadership consultation, respondents were questioned with a focus on commitment and the situation for higher education institutions; 3) respondents were also asked to describe the structure of the system regarding digital transformation (the word to describe is in contradiction with the question:  participants’ opinions  four answer categories in terms of the usage of learning management systems at institutions (from a=yes, very much, fully engaged, to d=no, not at this stage))”.

Conclusions contains numerous statements (personal comments) that do not emerge from the analysis performed and / or are not related to the subject: “the relevance of innovation in higher education in terms of a systemic perspective; This study explains the implementation of digital transformation methodologies all over several countries; That is the reason why the study is focused on describing the evolution and implementation of digitalization processes regarding an important country in South America !?; Particularly, in this chapter we have described some variables and indicators which are playing a relevant function in an educational ecosystem, such as the Chilean case!?; Public universities have published missions alike to those for private and, as the data from the Chilean case suggests, are engaged in taking both operational and strategic policies; Additionally, the data from the Chilean case shows that higher education institutions can implement…!?

Author Response

From my point of view, the article has some major imbalances. In general, it is about the authors' attempt to comply with the scientific rigors of an article proposed for publication in the journal Sustainability and to remain imprisoned within the limits of the project mentioned in the content. 

1. The title proposed by using the expression Latin American context, induces some confusion, the reader expecting a research of this geographical area. It is true that in subchapter 3.2 there is a list of countries but, during the paper, only one entity is used, the Latin American Community (LAC), with some particular references to Chile. But the reality is that this article presents the results of a much larger study, in which LAC is the subject of comparative analysis. 

Many thanks for your comments. A reference to the countries that make up the LAC region has been incorporated in the text in order to clarify the point made.

2. One of the key words is "cross-cultural". I looked for this expression in the text and I didn't find it and neither "cultural" has too many references.

Many thanks for your comments. References on cross-cultural have been incorporated both in the text and in the bibliography

3. Even though there are two stated goals throughout the article, there are many statements about research (many objectives stated without being achieved or without being argued):

• “The authors intend identifying main disruptive technologies by shaping them and researching how models and processes of institutions are being transformed, generating deep but somehow fragile changes. From this assertion we describe the challenges, risks, opportunities, and guidelines that universities in Latin America must face to address their own digital transformation.”
• “Correspondingly, the matter of this research is to comprehend whether, the social, organizational, and technological aspects are linked to the interest generated by the digital transformation in higher education institutions”
• “Utilizing this approach, this research explores how the adoption of technologies by universities offers a framework for understanding the digitalization.”
• “Based on a subregional assessment and several criteria including digital maturity, international rankings, and the progress achieved in digital transformation, among others, this initiative included a diagnosis of the current situation of……”
• “This study explains the implementation of digital transformation methodologies all over several countries,”

Many thanks for your comments. The wording of the document has been improved in order to respond to the stated objectives and thus avoid statements that do not refer to them. Please, see the new version of the paper.

4. The methodology is ambiguous: it refers to research carried out on the basis of a project “This research is part of an international project regarding the Open Consultation carried out by the International Association of Universities (IAU) between November 2018 and April 2019 “.

Many thanks for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified according to this comment.

1. There are no references to the authors' contribution to this research, if it is an analysis of secondary data, to which practically the four phases of the research refer. (proposed in 3.2 Measurement and Data Collection; for e.g. what is more clearly “certification of the results leading to a partial or full qualification”?)

Many thanks for your comments. The contribution of the authors is in the analytical perspective that is proposed, that is a systematic perspective. This perspective allows us to understand the problems of digital transformation in LAC from the different elements that compose it.

6. Subchapter 4 contains superficial analyses (results in percentages) without studying the possible correlations between variables. Some explanations, statements are more difficult to understand: 1) “Regarding the scope of the system, respondents were asked about their general perceptions regarding the commitment to widening access to higher education; 2) In terms of the leadership consultation, respondents were questioned with a focus on commitment and the situation for higher education institutions; 3) respondents were also asked to describe the structure of the system regarding digital transformation (the word to describe is in contradiction with the question: participants’ opinions  four answer categories in terms of the usage of learning management systems at institutions (from a=yes, very much, fully engaged, to d=no, not at this stage))”.

Many thanks for your comments. In order to improve the aforementioned section, a new data treatment has been incorporated. With this, it is expected to have a deeper analysis of the data.

7. Conclusions contains numerous statements (personal comments) that do not emerge from the analysis performed and / or are not related to the subject: “the relevance of innovation in higher education in terms of a systemic perspective; This study explains the implementation of digital transformation methodologies all over several countries; That is the reason why the study is focused on describing the evolution and implementation of digitalization processes regarding an important country in South America !?; Particularly, in this chapter we have described some variables and indicators which are playing a relevant function in an educational ecosystem, such as the Chilean case!?; Public universities have published missions alike to those for private and, as the data from the Chilean case suggests, are engaged in taking both operational and strategic policies; Additionally, the data from the Chilean case shows that higher education institutions can implement…!?

Many thanks for your comments. The conclusions of the study have been modified. The findings have been framed in the LAC region and their subregions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for taking into account my comments while preparing a revised version of your paper.

1) Typos were corrected on the old text, but there are new ones, especially near new text entries. For example:

“in the region [37] It was due to the…” Missing dot (page 5)

“…from remote activities [38] This 222 situation revealed…’ Missing dot (page 5)

‘…between the different actors [39] In LAC the balance between… Missing dot (page 5)

‘…policies and strategies [38] The OECD indicates that…’ Missing dot (page 5)

2) and 3) The background of research area and the justification on the area of interest is better now.

4) Typically gender and age analysis is included in a short description of participant demographics.

5) A separation of authors’ voice from the literature was not implemented. The ownership of data collected is not clear. It seems that data are coming from third authors (persons who do not participate in the author team of the study under review):

Jensen, T. Higher Education in the Digital Era. The Current State of Transformation around the World in the Digital Era; International Association of Universities (IAU): Paris, France, 2019.

Moraña, M. (2017). Transculturación y latinoamericanos. Cuadernos de Literatura, vol Xxi, 41.

Please explain which was your role in data collection, and clearly separate data you collected from other studies and publications. Tables 1 and 2 have a remark: “Source: [46] and own elaboration”. Figures also reference third party sources. What is your elaboration taking also into account that these data have already been published?

Authors implied that “The writing of the document has been improved in order to separate the voice of the authors from the literature”, but this was not really made.

6) Partially answered. For example in Figure 3 ‘respondents were also asked to describe the structure of the system regarding digital transformation within the institution”, but the legend of Figure 3 is ‘Relevance of the usage of learning management systems at institutions’ and some answers are related to engagement (e.g. Figure 3, option (a)). Finally, it is not clear what participants were asked (structure of the system, engagement with LMS, or relevance of their usage?). Again, authors say that “the new version of the manuscript has been modified according to them (comments)’, but this was not fully addressed. In order to fully understand the participant’s answers we need to know how the question was made.

7) OK

8) I have read the previous version of the paper, there is no need to cite parts of it. Maybe my comment was not very clear. It would be helpful if authors could give on conclusions an explanation of why –based on their study and according on their own opinion- people in the study area have a resistance to digital transformation (in other words, some kind of results interpretation maybe needed).

Overall, please explain how this study is different than other similar ones (already published), separate the new data collections and better justify the originality of this new work.

Author Response

Thank you for taking into account my comments while preparing a revised version of your paper.

1) Typos were corrected on the old text, but there are new ones, especially near new text entries. For example:

“in the region [37] It was due to the…” Missing dot (page 5)

“…from remote activities [38] This 222 situation revealed…’ Missing dot (page 5)

‘…between the different actors [39] In LAC the balance between… Missing dot (page 5)

‘…policies and strategies [38] The OECD indicates that…’ Missing dot (page 5)

Many thanks for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified according to them.

2) and 3) The background of research area and the justification on the area of interest is better now.

Many thanks for appreciating the change made.

4) Typically gender and age analysis is included in a short description of participant demographics.

Many thanks for your comments. The new version of the manuscript has been modified according to them.

5) A separation of authors’ voice from the literature was not implemented. The ownership of data collected is not clear. It seems that data are coming from third authors (persons who do not participate in the author team of the study under review):

Jensen, T. Higher Education in the Digital Era. The Current State of Transformation around the World in the Digital Era; International Association of Universities (IAU): Paris, France, 2019.

Moraña, M. (2017). Transculturación y latinoamericanos. Cuadernos de Literatura, vol. XXI, 41.

Please explain which was your role in data collection, and clearly separate data you collected from other studies and publications. Tables 1 and 2 have a remark: “Source: [46] and own elaboration”. Figures also reference third party sources. What is your elaboration taking also into account that these data have already been published?

Authors implied that “The writing of the document has been improved in order to separate the voice of the authors from the literature”, but this was not really made.

Many thanks for your comments. It has been explained how the data were collected and which ones have been taken from other studies and publications (that is, secondary source is mentioned in the new version). The comments in Tables 1 and 2 have been changed to clarify the work carried out. The wording of the document has been improved in order to separate the voice of the authors from the referenced authors.

6) Partially answered. For example in Figure 3 ‘respondents were also asked to describe the structure of the system regarding digital transformation within the institution”, but the legend of Figure 3 is ‘Relevance of the usage of learning management systems at institutions’ and some answers are related to engagement (e.g. Figure 3, option (a)). Finally, it is not clear what participants were asked (structure of the system, engagement with LMS, or relevance of their usage?). Again, authors say that “the new version of the manuscript has been modified according to them (comments)’, but this was not fully addressed. In order to fully understand the participant’s answers we need to know how the question was made.

Many thanks for your comments. The document has specified the question that was asked to the participants.

7) OK

8) I have read the previous version of the paper, there is no need to cite parts of it. Maybe my comment was not very clear. It would be helpful if authors could give on conclusions an explanation of why –based on their study and according on their own opinion- people in the study area have a resistance to digital transformation (in other words, some kind of results interpretation maybe needed).

Many thanks for your comments. In the conclusions part, an explanation has been made about why people in the study area have a resistance to digital transformation in the current context.

Reviewer 3 Report

Many good improvements. In the end, all this led to an improvement of the publication proposal.

Author Response

Many good improvements. In the end, all this led to an improvement of the publication proposal.

Many thanks for your comments.