digital literacy research paper

• Open access
• Published: 08 June 2022

A systematic review on digital literacy

• Hasan Tinmaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4310-0848 1 ,
• Yoo-Taek Lee   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1913-9059 2 ,
• Mina Fanea-Ivanovici   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2921-2990 3 &
• Hasnan Baber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8951-3501 4  

Smart Learning Environments volume  9 , Article number:  21 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

48k Accesses

39 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

The purpose of this study is to discover the main themes and categories of the research studies regarding digital literacy. To serve this purpose, the databases of WoS/Clarivate Analytics, Proquest Central, Emerald Management Journals, Jstor Business College Collections and Scopus/Elsevier were searched with four keyword-combinations and final forty-three articles were included in the dataset. The researchers applied a systematic literature review method to the dataset. The preliminary findings demonstrated that there is a growing prevalence of digital literacy articles starting from the year 2013. The dominant research methodology of the reviewed articles is qualitative. The four major themes revealed from the qualitative content analysis are: digital literacy, digital competencies, digital skills and digital thinking. Under each theme, the categories and their frequencies are analysed. Recommendations for further research and for real life implementations are generated.

Introduction

The extant literature on digital literacy, skills and competencies is rich in definitions and classifications, but there is still no consensus on the larger themes and subsumed themes categories. (Heitin, 2016 ). To exemplify, existing inventories of Internet skills suffer from ‘incompleteness and over-simplification, conceptual ambiguity’ (van Deursen et al., 2015 ), and Internet skills are only a part of digital skills. While there is already a plethora of research in this field, this research paper hereby aims to provide a general framework of digital areas and themes that can best describe digital (cap)abilities in the novel context of Industry 4.0 and the accelerated pandemic-triggered digitalisation. The areas and themes can represent the starting point for drafting a contemporary digital literacy framework.

Sousa and Rocha ( 2019 ) explained that there is a stake of digital skills for disruptive digital business, and they connect it to the latest developments, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud technology, big data, artificial intelligence, and robotics. The topic is even more important given the large disparities in digital literacy across regions (Tinmaz et al., 2022 ). More precisely, digital inequalities encompass skills, along with access, usage and self-perceptions. These inequalities need to be addressed, as they are credited with a ‘potential to shape life chances in multiple ways’ (Robinson et al., 2015 ), e.g., academic performance, labour market competitiveness, health, civic and political participation. Steps have been successfully taken to address physical access gaps, but skills gaps are still looming (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010a ). Moreover, digital inequalities have grown larger due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and they influenced the very state of health of the most vulnerable categories of population or their employability in a time when digital skills are required (Baber et al., 2022 ; Beaunoyer, Dupéré & Guitton, 2020 ).

The systematic review the researchers propose is a useful updated instrument of classification and inventory for digital literacy. Considering the latest developments in the economy and in line with current digitalisation needs, digitally literate population may assist policymakers in various fields, e.g., education, administration, healthcare system, and managers of companies and other concerned organisations that need to stay competitive and to employ competitive workforce. Therefore, it is indispensably vital to comprehend the big picture of digital literacy related research.

Literature review

Since the advent of Digital Literacy, scholars have been concerned with identifying and classifying the various (cap)abilities related to its operation. Using the most cited academic papers in this stream of research, several classifications of digital-related literacies, competencies, and skills emerged.

Digital literacies

Digital literacy, which is one of the challenges of integration of technology in academic courses (Blau, Shamir-Inbal & Avdiel, 2020 ), has been defined in the current literature as the competencies and skills required for navigating a fragmented and complex information ecosystem (Eshet, 2004 ). A ‘Digital Literacy Framework’ was designed by Eshet-Alkalai ( 2012 ), comprising six categories: (a) photo-visual thinking (understanding and using visual information); (b) real-time thinking (simultaneously processing a variety of stimuli); (c) information thinking (evaluating and combining information from multiple digital sources); (d) branching thinking (navigating in non-linear hyper-media environments); (e) reproduction thinking (creating outcomes using technological tools by designing new content or remixing existing digital content); (f) social-emotional thinking (understanding and applying cyberspace rules). According to Heitin ( 2016 ), digital literacy groups the following clusters: (a) finding and consuming digital content; (b) creating digital content; (c) communicating or sharing digital content. Hence, the literature describes the digital literacy in many ways by associating a set of various technical and non-technical elements.

• Digital competencies

The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp 2.1.), the most recent framework proposed by the European Union, which is currently under review and undergoing an updating process, contains five competency areas: (a) information and data literacy, (b) communication and collaboration, (c) digital content creation, (d) safety, and (e) problem solving (Carretero, Vuorikari & Punie, 2017 ). Digital competency had previously been described in a technical fashion by Ferrari ( 2012 ) as a set comprising information skills, communication skills, content creation skills, safety skills, and problem-solving skills, which later outlined the areas of competence in DigComp 2.1, too.

• Digital skills

Ng ( 2012 ) pointed out the following three categories of digital skills: (a) technological (using technological tools); (b) cognitive (thinking critically when managing information); (c) social (communicating and socialising). A set of Internet skill was suggested by Van Deursen and Van Dijk ( 2009 , 2010b ), which contains: (a) operational skills (basic skills in using internet technology), (b) formal Internet skills (navigation and orientation skills); (c) information Internet skills (fulfilling information needs), and (d) strategic Internet skills (using the internet to reach goals). In 2014, the same authors added communication and content creation skills to the initial framework (van Dijk & van Deursen). Similarly, Helsper and Eynon ( 2013 ) put forward a set of four digital skills: technical, social, critical, and creative skills. Furthermore, van Deursen et al. ( 2015 ) built a set of items and factors to measure Internet skills: operational, information navigation, social, creative, mobile. More recent literature (vaan Laar et al., 2017 ) divides digital skills into seven core categories: technical, information management, communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving.

It is worth mentioning that the various methodologies used to classify digital literacy are overlapping or non-exhaustive, which confirms the conceptual ambiguity mentioned by van Deursen et al. ( 2015 ).

• Digital thinking

Thinking skills (along with digital skills) have been acknowledged to be a significant element of digital literacy in the educational process context (Ferrari, 2012 ). In fact, critical thinking, creativity, and innovation are at the very core of DigComp. Information and Communication Technology as a support for thinking is a learning objective in any school curriculum. In the same vein, analytical thinking and interdisciplinary thinking, which help solve problems, are yet other concerns of educators in the Industry 4.0 (Ozkan-Ozen & Kazancoglu, 2021 ).

However, we have recently witnessed a shift of focus from learning how to use information and communication technologies to using it while staying safe in the cyber-environment and being aware of alternative facts. Digital thinking would encompass identifying fake news, misinformation, and echo chambers (Sulzer, 2018 ). Not least important, concern about cybersecurity has grown especially in times of political, social or economic turmoil, such as the elections or the Covid-19 crisis (Sulzer, 2018 ; Puig, Blanco-Anaya & Perez-Maceira, 2021 ).

Ultimately, this systematic review paper focuses on the following major research questions as follows:

Research question 1: What is the yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers?

Research question 2: What are the research methods for digital literacy related papers?

Research question 3: What are the main themes in digital literacy related papers?

Research question 4: What are the concentrated categories (under revealed main themes) in digital literacy related papers?

This study employed the systematic review method where the authors scrutinized the existing literature around the major research question of digital literacy. As Uman ( 2011 ) pointed, in systematic literature review, the findings of the earlier research are examined for the identification of consistent and repetitive themes. The systematic review method differs from literature review with its well managed and highly organized qualitative scrutiny processes where researchers tend to cover less materials from fewer number of databases to write their literature review (Kowalczyk & Truluck, 2013 ; Robinson & Lowe, 2015 ).

Data collection

To address major research objectives, the following five important databases are selected due to their digital literacy focused research dominance: 1. WoS/Clarivate Analytics, 2. Proquest Central; 3. Emerald Management Journals; 4. Jstor Business College Collections; 5. Scopus/Elsevier.

The search was made in the second half of June 2021, in abstract and key words written in English language. We only kept research articles and book chapters (herein referred to as papers). Our purpose was to identify a set of digital literacy areas, or an inventory of such areas and topics. To serve that purpose, systematic review was utilized with the following synonym key words for the search: ‘digital literacy’, ‘digital skills’, ‘digital competence’ and ‘digital fluency’, to find the mainstream literature dealing with the topic. These key words were unfolded as a result of the consultation with the subject matter experts (two board members from Korean Digital Literacy Association and two professors from technology studies department). Below are the four key word combinations used in the search: “Digital literacy AND systematic review”, “Digital skills AND systematic review”, “Digital competence AND systematic review”, and “Digital fluency AND systematic review”.

A sequential systematic search was made in the five databases mentioned above. Thus, from one database to another, duplicate papers were manually excluded in a cascade manner to extract only unique results and to make the research smoother to conduct. At this stage, we kept 47 papers. Further exclusion criteria were applied. Thus, only full-text items written in English were selected, and in doing so, three papers were excluded (no full text available), and one other paper was excluded because it was not written in English, but in Spanish. Therefore, we investigated a total number of 43 papers, as shown in Table 1 . “ Appendix A ” shows the list of these papers with full references.

Data analysis

The 43 papers selected after the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively, were reviewed the materials independently by two researchers who were from two different countries. The researchers identified all topics pertaining to digital literacy, as they appeared in the papers. Next, a third researcher independently analysed these findings by excluded duplicates A qualitative content analysis was manually performed by calculating the frequency of major themes in all papers, where the raw data was compared and contrasted (Fraenkel et al., 2012 ). All three reviewers independently list the words and how the context in which they appeared and then the three reviewers collectively decided for how it should be categorized. Lastly, it is vital to remind that literature review of this article was written after the identification of the themes appeared as a result of our qualitative analyses. Therefore, the authors decided to shape the literature review structure based on the themes.

As an answer to the first research question (the yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers), Fig.  1 demonstrates the yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers. It is seen that there is an increasing trend about the digital literacy papers.

Yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers

Research question number two (The research methods for digital literacy related papers) concentrates on what research methods are employed for these digital literacy related papers. As Fig.  2 shows, most of the papers were using the qualitative method. Not stated refers to book chapters.

Research methods used in the reviewed articles

When forty-three articles were analysed for the main themes as in research question number three (The main themes in digital literacy related papers), the overall findings were categorized around four major themes: (i) literacies, (ii) competencies, (iii) skills, and (iv) thinking. Under every major theme, the categories were listed and explained as in research question number four (The concentrated categories (under revealed main themes) in digital literacy related papers).

The authors utilized an overt categorization for the depiction of these major themes. For example, when the ‘creativity’ was labelled as a skill, the authors also categorized it under the ‘skills’ theme. Similarly, when ‘creativity’ was mentioned as a competency, the authors listed it under the ‘competencies’ theme. Therefore, it is possible to recognize the same finding under different major themes.

Major theme 1: literacies

Digital literacy being the major concern of this paper was observed to be blatantly mentioned in five papers out forty-three. One of these articles described digital literacy as the human proficiencies to live, learn and work in the current digital society. In addition to these five articles, two additional papers used the same term as ‘critical digital literacy’ by describing it as a person’s or a society’s accessibility and assessment level interaction with digital technologies to utilize and/or create information. Table 2 summarizes the major categories under ‘Literacies’ major theme.

Computer literacy, media literacy and cultural literacy were the second most common literacy (n = 5). One of the article branches computer literacy as tool (detailing with software and hardware uses) and resource (focusing on information processing capacity of a computer) literacies. Cultural literacy was emphasized as a vital element for functioning in an intercultural team on a digital project.

Disciplinary literacy (n = 4) was referring to utilizing different computer programs (n = 2) or technical gadgets (n = 2) with a specific emphasis on required cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills to be able to work in any digital context (n = 3), serving for the using (n = 2), creating and applying (n = 2) digital literacy in real life.

Data literacy, technology literacy and multiliteracy were the third frequent categories (n = 3). The ‘multiliteracy’ was referring to the innate nature of digital technologies, which have been infused into many aspects of human lives.

Last but not least, Internet literacy, mobile literacy, web literacy, new literacy, personal literacy and research literacy were discussed in forty-three article findings. Web literacy was focusing on being able to connect with people on the web (n = 2), discover the web content (especially the navigation on a hyper-textual platform), and learn web related skills through practical web experiences. Personal literacy was highlighting digital identity management. Research literacy was not only concentrating on conducting scientific research ability but also finding available scholarship online.

Twenty-four other categories are unfolded from the results sections of forty-three articles. Table 3 presents the list of these other literacies where the authors sorted the categories in an ascending alphabetical order without any other sorting criterion. Primarily, search, tagging, filtering and attention literacies were mainly underlining their roles in information processing. Furthermore, social-structural literacy was indicated as the recognition of the social circumstances and generation of information. Another information-related literacy was pointed as publishing literacy, which is the ability to disseminate information via different digital channels.

While above listed personal literacy was referring to digital identity management, network literacy was explained as someone’s social networking ability to manage the digital relationship with other people. Additionally, participatory literacy was defined as the necessary abilities to join an online team working on online content production.

Emerging technology literacy was stipulated as an essential ability to recognize and appreciate the most recent and innovative technologies in along with smart choices related to these technologies. Additionally, the critical literacy was added as an ability to make smart judgements on the cost benefit analysis of these recent technologies.

Last of all, basic, intermediate, and advanced digital assessment literacies were specified for educational institutions that are planning to integrate various digital tools to conduct instructional assessments in their bodies.

Major theme 2: competencies

The second major theme was revealed as competencies. The authors directly categorized the findings that are specified with the word of competency. Table 4 summarizes the entire category set for the competencies major theme.

The most common category was the ‘digital competence’ (n = 14) where one of the articles points to that category as ‘generic digital competence’ referring to someone’s creativity for multimedia development (video editing was emphasized). Under this broad category, the following sub-categories were associated:

Problem solving (n = 10)

Safety (n = 7)

Information processing (n = 5)

Content creation (n = 5)

Communication (n = 2)

Digital rights (n = 1)

Digital emotional intelligence (n = 1)

Digital teamwork (n = 1)

Big data utilization (n = 1)

Artificial Intelligence utilization (n = 1)

Virtual leadership (n = 1)

Self-disruption (in along with the pace of digitalization) (n = 1)

Like ‘digital competency’, five additional articles especially coined the term as ‘digital competence as a life skill’. Deeper analysis demonstrated the following points: social competences (n = 4), communication in mother tongue (n = 3) and foreign language (n = 2), entrepreneurship (n = 3), civic competence (n = 2), fundamental science (n = 1), technology (n = 1) and mathematics (n = 1) competences, learning to learn (n = 1) and self-initiative (n = 1).

Moreover, competencies were linked to workplace digital competencies in three articles and highlighted as significant for employability (n = 3) and ‘economic engagement’ (n = 3). Digital competencies were also detailed for leisure (n = 2) and communication (n = 2). Furthermore, two articles pointed digital competencies as an inter-cultural competency and one as a cross-cultural competency. Lastly, the ‘digital nativity’ (n = 1) was clarified as someone’s innate competency of being able to feel contented and satisfied with digital technologies.

Major theme 3: skills

The third major observed theme was ‘skills’, which was dominantly gathered around information literacy skills (n = 19) and information and communication technologies skills (n = 18). Table 5 demonstrates the categories with more than one occurrence.

Table 6 summarizes the sub-categories of the two most frequent categories of ‘skills’ major theme. The information literacy skills noticeably concentrate on the steps of information processing; evaluation (n = 6), utilization (n = 4), finding (n = 3), locating (n = 2) information. Moreover, the importance of trial/error process, being a lifelong learner, feeling a need for information and so forth were evidently listed under this sub-category. On the other hand, ICT skills were grouped around cognitive and affective domains. For instance, while technical skills in general and use of social media, coding, multimedia, chat or emailing in specific were reported in cognitive domain, attitude, intention, and belief towards ICT were mentioned as the elements of affective domain.

Communication skills (n = 9) were multi-dimensional for different societies, cultures, and globalized contexts, requiring linguistic skills. Collaboration skills (n = 9) are also recurrently cited with an explicit emphasis for virtual platforms.

‘Ethics for digital environment’ encapsulated ethical use of information (n = 4) and different technologies (n = 2), knowing digital laws (n = 2) and responsibilities (n = 2) in along with digital rights and obligations (n = 1), having digital awareness (n = 1), following digital etiquettes (n = 1), treating other people with respect (n = 1) including no cyber-bullying (n = 1) and no stealing or damaging other people (n = 1).

‘Digital fluency’ involved digital access (n = 2) by using different software and hardware (n = 2) in online platforms (n = 1) or communication tools (n = 1) or within programming environments (n = 1). Digital fluency also underlined following recent technological advancements (n = 1) and knowledge (n = 1) including digital health and wellness (n = 1) dimension.

‘Social intelligence’ related to understanding digital culture (n = 1), the concept of digital exclusion (n = 1) and digital divide (n = 3). ‘Research skills’ were detailed with searching academic information (n = 3) on databases such as Web of Science and Scopus (n = 2) and their citation, summarization, and quotation (n = 2).

‘Digital teaching’ was described as a skill (n = 2) in Table 4 whereas it was also labelled as a competence (n = 1) as shown in Table 3 . Similarly, while learning to learn (n = 1) was coined under competencies in Table 3 , digital learning (n = 2, Table 4 ) and life-long learning (n = 1, Table 5 ) were stated as learning related skills. Moreover, learning was used with the following three terms: learning readiness (n = 1), self-paced learning (n = 1) and learning flexibility (n = 1).

Table 7 shows other categories listed below the ‘skills’ major theme. The list covers not only the software such as GIS, text mining, mapping, or bibliometric analysis programs but also the conceptual skills such as the fourth industrial revolution and information management.

Major theme 4: thinking

The last identified major theme was the different types of ‘thinking’. As Table 8 shows, ‘critical thinking’ was the most frequent thinking category (n = 4). Except computational thinking, the other categories were not detailed.

Computational thinking (n = 3) was associated with the general logic of how a computer works and sub-categorized into the following steps; construction of the problem (n = 3), abstraction (n = 1), disintegration of the problem (n = 2), data collection, (n = 2), data analysis (n = 2), algorithmic design (n = 2), parallelization & iteration (n = 1), automation (n = 1), generalization (n = 1), and evaluation (n = 2).

A transversal analysis of digital literacy categories reveals the following fields of digital literacy application:

Technological advancement (IT, ICT, Industry 4.0, IoT, text mining, GIS, bibliometric analysis, mapping data, technology, AI, big data)

Networking (Internet, web, connectivity, network, safety)

Information (media, news, communication)

Creative-cultural industries (culture, publishing, film, TV, leisure, content creation)

Academia (research, documentation, library)

Citizenship (participation, society, social intelligence, awareness, politics, rights, legal use, ethics)

Education (life skills, problem solving, teaching, learning, education, lifelong learning)

Professional life (work, teamwork, collaboration, economy, commerce, leadership, decision making)

Personal level (critical thinking, evaluation, analytical thinking, innovative thinking)

This systematic review on digital literacy concentrated on forty-three articles from the databases of WoS/Clarivate Analytics, Proquest Central, Emerald Management Journals, Jstor Business College Collections and Scopus/Elsevier. The initial results revealed that there is an increasing trend on digital literacy focused academic papers. Research work in digital literacy is critical in a context of disruptive digital business, and more recently, the pandemic-triggered accelerated digitalisation (Beaunoyer, Dupéré & Guitton, 2020 ; Sousa & Rocha 2019 ). Moreover, most of these papers were employing qualitative research methods. The raw data of these articles were analysed qualitatively using systematic literature review to reveal major themes and categories. Four major themes that appeared are: digital literacy, digital competencies, digital skills and thinking.

Whereas the mainstream literature describes digital literacy as a set of photo-visual, real-time, information, branching, reproduction and social-emotional thinking (Eshet-Alkalai, 2012 ) or as a set of precise specific operations, i.e., finding, consuming, creating, communicating and sharing digital content (Heitin, 2016 ), this study reveals that digital literacy revolves around and is in connection with the concepts of computer literacy, media literacy, cultural literacy or disciplinary literacy. In other words, the present systematic review indicates that digital literacy is far broader than specific tasks, englobing the entire sphere of computer operation and media use in a cultural context.

The digital competence yardstick, DigComp (Carretero, Vuorikari & Punie, 2017 ) suggests that the main digital competencies cover information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem solving. Similarly, the findings of this research place digital competencies in relation to problem solving, safety, information processing, content creation and communication. Therefore, the findings of the systematic literature review are, to a large extent, in line with the existing framework used in the European Union.

The investigation of the main keywords associated with digital skills has revealed that information literacy, ICT, communication, collaboration, digital content creation, research and decision-making skill are the most representative. In a structured way, the existing literature groups these skills in technological, cognitive, and social (Ng, 2012 ) or, more extensively, into operational, formal, information Internet, strategic, communication and content creation (van Dijk & van Deursen, 2014 ). In time, the literature has become richer in frameworks, and prolific authors have improved their results. As such, more recent research (vaan Laar et al., 2017 ) use the following categories: technical, information management, communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving.

Whereas digital thinking was observed to be mostly related with critical thinking and computational thinking, DigComp connects it with critical thinking, creativity, and innovation, on the one hand, and researchers highlight fake news, misinformation, cybersecurity, and echo chambers as exponents of digital thinking, on the other hand (Sulzer, 2018 ; Puig, Blanco-Anaya & Perez-Maceira, 2021 ).

This systematic review research study looks ahead to offer an initial step and guideline for the development of a more contemporary digital literacy framework including digital literacy major themes and factors. The researchers provide the following recommendations for both researchers and practitioners.

Recommendations for prospective research

By considering the major qualitative research trend, it seems apparent that more quantitative research-oriented studies are needed. Although it requires more effort and time, mixed method studies will help understand digital literacy holistically.

As digital literacy is an umbrella term for many different technologies, specific case studies need be designed, such as digital literacy for artificial intelligence or digital literacy for drones’ usage.

Digital literacy affects different areas of human lives, such as education, business, health, governance, and so forth. Therefore, different case studies could be carried out for each of these unique dimensions of our lives. For instance, it is worth investigating the role of digital literacy on lifelong learning in particular, and on education in general, as well as the digital upskilling effects on the labour market flexibility.

Further experimental studies on digital literacy are necessary to realize how certain variables (for instance, age, gender, socioeconomic status, cognitive abilities, etc.) affect this concept overtly or covertly. Moreover, the digital divide issue needs to be analysed through the lens of its main determinants.

New bibliometric analysis method can be implemented on digital literacy documents to reveal more information on how these works are related or centred on what major topic. This visual approach will assist to realize the big picture within the digital literacy framework.

Recommendations for practitioners

The digital literacy stakeholders, policymakers in education and managers in private organizations, need to be aware that there are many dimensions and variables regarding the implementation of digital literacy. In that case, stakeholders must comprehend their beneficiaries or the participants more deeply to increase the effect of digital literacy related activities. For example, critical thinking and problem-solving skills and abilities are mentioned to affect digital literacy. Hence, stakeholders have to initially understand whether the participants have enough entry level critical thinking and problem solving.

Development of digital literacy for different groups of people requires more energy, since each group might require a different set of skills, abilities, or competencies. Hence, different subject matter experts, such as technologists, instructional designers, content experts, should join the team.

It is indispensably vital to develop different digital frameworks for different technologies (basic or advanced) or different contexts (different levels of schooling or various industries).

These frameworks should be updated regularly as digital fields are evolving rapidly. Every year, committees should gather around to understand new technological trends and decide whether they should address the changes into their frameworks.

Understanding digital literacy in a thorough manner can enable decision makers to correctly implement and apply policies addressing the digital divide that is reflected onto various aspects of life, e.g., health, employment, education, especially in turbulent times such as the COVID-19 pandemic is.

Lastly, it is also essential to state the study limitations. This study is limited to the analysis of a certain number of papers, obtained from using the selected keywords and databases. Therefore, an extension can be made by adding other keywords and searching other databases.

Availability of data and materials

The authors present the articles used for the study in “ Appendix A ”.

Baber, H., Fanea-Ivanovici, M., Lee, Y. T., & Tinmaz, H. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of digital literacy research and emerging themes pre-during COVID-19 pandemic. Information and Learning Sciences . https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-10-2021-0090 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 , 10642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424

Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T., & Avdiel, O. (2020). How does the pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced collaborative academic course promote digital literacies, self-regulation, and perceived learning of students? The Internet and Higher Education, 45 , 100722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100722

Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use (No. JRC106281). Joint Research Centre, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC106281

Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 13 (1), 93–106, https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/4793/

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for digital literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9 (2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.28945/1621

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. JCR IPTS, Sevilla. https://ifap.ru/library/book522.pdf

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). Mc Graw Hill.

Google Scholar  

Heitin, L. (2016). What is digital literacy? Education Week, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/what-is-digital-literacy/2016/11

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2013). Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication, 28 (6), 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113499113

Kowalczyk, N., & Truluck, C. (2013). Literature reviews and systematic reviews: What is the difference ? . Radiologic Technology, 85 (2), 219–222.

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59 (3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016

Ozkan-Ozen, Y. D., & Kazancoglu, Y. (2021). Analysing workforce development challenges in the Industry 4.0. International Journal of Manpower . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0167

Puig, B., Blanco-Anaya, P., & Perez-Maceira, J. J. (2021). “Fake News” or Real Science? Critical thinking to assess information on COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 6 , 646909. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.646909

Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T. M., & Stern, M. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18 (5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532

Robinson, P., & Lowe, J. (2015). Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39 (2), 103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12393

Sousa, M. J., & Rocha, A. (2019). Skills for disruptive digital business. Journal of Business Research, 94 , 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.051

Sulzer, A. (2018). (Re)conceptualizing digital literacies before and after the election of Trump. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 17 (2), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-06-2017-0098

Tinmaz, H., Fanea-Ivanovici, M., & Baber, H. (2022). A snapshot of digital literacy. Library Hi Tech News , (ahead-of-print).

Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20 (1), 57–59.

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2015). Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society, 19 (6), 804–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1078834

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). Using the internet: Skills related problems in users’ online behaviour. Interacting with Computers, 21 , 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.06.005

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2010a). Measuring internet skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26 (10), 891–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2010.496338

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2010b). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13 (6), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774

van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2014). Digital skills, unlocking the information society . Palgrave MacMillan.

van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computer in Human Behavior, 72 , 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010

Download references

This research is funded by Woosong University Academic Research in 2022.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

AI & Big Data Department, Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University, Daejeon, South Korea

Hasan Tinmaz

Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University, Daejeon, South Korea

Yoo-Taek Lee

Department of Economics and Economic Policies, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

Mina Fanea-Ivanovici

Abu Dhabi School of Management, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Hasnan Baber

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors worked together on the manuscript equally. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hasnan Baber .

Ethics declarations

Competing of interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tinmaz, H., Lee, YT., Fanea-Ivanovici, M. et al. A systematic review on digital literacy. Smart Learn. Environ. 9 , 21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-y

Download citation

Received : 23 February 2022

Accepted : 01 June 2022

Published : 08 June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital literacy
• Systematic review
• Qualitative research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 07 July 2023

Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: a systematic literature review

• Silvia Farias-Gaytan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5858-5900 1 ,
• Ignacio Aguaded 2 &
• Maria-Soledad Ramirez-Montoya 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  386 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

7437 Accesses

9 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

The incessant changes in technology generate new products and services, presenting multiple opportunities for the complex educational environment. Consequently, higher education institutions must be attentive to these changes to ensure that students have the knowledge and skills necessary for the work environment. This research aimed to identify studies related to digital transformation and digital literacy in higher education institutions through a systematic study of literature. The search resulted in 830 articles published in the Scopus and Web of Science databases from 2015 to 2022. Quality questions, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied where 202 articles were selected for the study. The results show (a) interest of educational institutions in empirical studies where technologies are incorporated for didactic purposes, (b) challenges of opportunity in training programs to develop digital competences of teachers and students, (c) little interest in the development of media literacy, (d) the methodological aspects of the studies allow exploring new perspectives of digital transformation in higher education. This article may be of interest to academics, decision-makers and trainers of future professionals to introduce educational technology into learning processes in line with the complex demands of the world of work and society.

Similar content being viewed by others

Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective

Exploring factors influencing pre-service teacher’s digital teaching competence and the mediating effects of data literacy: empirical evidence from China

A bibliometric analysis of knowledge mapping in Chinese education digitalization research from 2012 to 2022

Introduction.

At the end of the twentieth century, the emergence of the internet led to organizations’ digital transformation from analogous to digital information (“digitization”), followed by the incorporation of information technologies into business processes (“digitalization”) (Verhoef et al., 2019 ). Several authors make no distinction between digitalization and digital transformation (Hess et al., 2016 ; Tratkowska, 2020 ; Xiao, 2020 ). Verhoef et al. (2021) propose that digital transformation goes further; its impact generates new business models and value creation. Organizations’ various areas are influenced and committed to change to remain relevant (Anderson and Ellerby, 2018 ). For this study, the term “digital transformation” (DT) was used.

Digital transformation goes beyond just incorporating technologies. An example of this is to consider that digital technologies and automation demand that the workforce develop digital skills and human-centered skills (Digital Transformation Expert Panel, 2021 ), which impacts aspects such as culture, processes, as well as the strategy of the organization (Fischer et al., 2020 ) consequently the organization must make the necessary adjustments for its effective implementation. These impacts reach all business lines including higher education.

Higher education institutions, in particular, must be attentive to the changes in the environment and society to ensure that students have the knowledge and skills demanded. Morin ( 2019 , 2020 ) invites us to think of complexity as a challenge of contemporary thinking, which requires a reform of our way of thinking, since classical scientific thinking was previously built on three foundations: order, separability and reason, but developments in science have undermined these foundations. In this sense, high-level competences such as reasoning for complexity become indispensable in the formation of critical, systemic, scientific and innovative thinking (Ramírez-Montoya et al., 2022 ; Vázquez-Parra et al., 2022 ). Complex environments require active (Patiño et al., 2023 ), collaborative (Romero-Rodríguez et al., 2022 ), open education (Suárez-Brito et al., 2022 ) and digital technology systems (George-Reyes et al., 2023 ; Ponce et al., 2022 ). Because of this, education systems around the world have made various efforts to address the influence of digital technologies and DT, such as UNESCO’s ‘Working Group on Education on Digital Skills and Work’ (UNESCO, 2017 ), the “Bologna Digital 2020” report in Europe (Rampelt et al., 2019 ), the “Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Long-term Educational Reform and Development (2010–2020)” of the Chinese government (Xiao, 2020 ), and the Digital Educational Agenda ADE.mx in Mexico (SEP, 2019 ). Likewise, this transformation has triggered the development of topics of interest that intertwine education with technology as proposed by González-Pérez et al. ( 2019 ) (Table 1 ):

Currently, skills performed in digital environments have been added to the basic skills performed in analog environments. Digital literacy involves mastering software and hardware, development, analysis, and interaction with digital content (Chetty et al., 2018 ). Skills such as problem-solving and applying technology were derived from digital technologies (UNESCO, 2017 ), and are considered essential for workers to adapt to digital transformation (Digital Transformation Expert Panel, 2021 ). As new technology becomes available to users, it demands from them continuous learning to remain relevant.

Due to the above, it is worthwhile to research the use and impact of technologies in the educational field on the delivery of content, pedagogical practices, and evaluation and management of learning (Williamson and Hogan, 2020 ), as well as its impact on users, teachers and students. Systematic studies of related literature are scarce, during this investigation, we found four reviews ranging from 2020 to 2021; they focused on the development of digital skills of students (Starkey, 2020 ), or university professors (Bilbao Aiastui et al., 2021 ), on digital competence assessment processes and methods in higher education (Sillat et al., 2021 ), and one focused on media literacy (Manca et al., 2021 ). This study contributes to the subject by integrating digital transformation practices in education, as well as studies on digital competencies of students and teachers, which are key roles of higher education institutions.

This article aims to identify recent studies (2015–2022) related to the issues of digital transformation and digital literacy in higher education institutions through a systematic study of literature. The study seeks to answer what educational trends higher education institutions are using, as well as what studies they have carried out in this regard, and the opportunities they have identified to advance in digital transformation and digital literacy. This study can serve as a basis for higher education institutions interested in exploring educational innovations to identify these implementations and their outcomes and seek inter-institutional collaborations with common interests.

Methodology

The study was conducted through a systematic literature review (SLR) based on the guidelines proposed by Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 , p. 11), “a means to identify, evaluate and interpret relevant research on a particular topic". The phases to carry out the study were adapted from Kitchenham et al. ( 2010 ) and are described as follows:

Phase 1 Planning: The research starts from the objective of analyzing studies related to the topics of digital transformation and digital literacy in higher education institutions. A series of questions were defined to guide the review; these questions were derived from the integration of elements that would contribute to identify trends in digital transformation, research methods and instruments used in assessing such practices, as well as opportunities for future research; such findings would be useful to other researchers interested in the subject (Kitchenham and Charters, 2007 ) (Table 2 ).

Phase 2 Execution: The articles were selected using inclusion criteria such as the publication period between 2015 and 2022, studies in higher education institutions, focus on students and professors, and empirical research or mixed studies. Articles not arbitrated or published in languages other than Spanish and English were excluded (Table 3 ).

The search was conducted based on the above criteria in the Scopus and WoS databases (Table 4 ). 202 studies met the specified criteria (Fig. 1 ).

The flowchart presents the process of classifying the articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and the resulting number of articles. The flowchart was adapted from Moher et al. ( 2009 ).

Phase 3 Results: The results of each research question were analyzed to determine the educational trends higher education institutions incorporate, the studies they have carried out in this regard, and the opportunities to advance in digital transformation.

Results are presented based on the research questions. For data analysis, Excel and Power BI were used. The database is available at the following link: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21972170.v2 .

RQ1 What are the trends and topics addressed in the articles?

The trends identified were determined based on the emerging themes of educational technology by González-Pérez et al. ( 2019 ), highlighting digital pedagogies (166 articles), which “link pedagogical and technological supports to adapt to each area of knowledge” (González-Pérez et al., 2019 , p. 189). Examples include implementing the “blended learning” strategy (Power and Kannara, 2016 ; Tang and Chaw, 2016 ; Wang et al., 2022 ) and studies on digital skills (Ting, 2015 ; Tømte et al., 2015 ; Torres-Gastelú et al., 2019 ) and media competencies (Koc and Barut, 2016 ; Jormand et al., 2022 ) Second place went to adaptive technologies (21 articles) that “introduce systems that adapt to the needs of society and encourage learning” (González-Pérez et al., 2019 , p. 189). Examples are the use of Web 2.0 tools (Sichel et al., 2019 ), e-portfolio (Carl and Strydom, 2017 ), e-Learning (Divya and Mohamed Haneefa, 2018 ; Feriady et al., 2020 ), adaptive systems (Murray and Pérez, 2015 ), and social networks (Amaro-Jiménez et al., 2016 ; Robles Moral and Fernández Díaz, 2021 ).

To a lesser extent, the rest of the trends were found in 6 articles on technological models (Andrew et al., 2018 ; Bond et al., 2018 ; Kör et al., 2017 ) and open technologies (Cronin, 2017 ; Paskevicius and Irvine, 2019 ; Spieler et al., 2020 ). Finally, there were articles on disruptive technologies that use extended reality resources (Astudillo Torres, 2019 ; Bucea-Manea-Ţoniş et al., 2020 ) and smart technologies for mobile learning (Pinto Molina et al., 2019 ) (Fig. 2 ).

The rectangles show the proportion and number of published articles classified according to specific emerging issues in the use of educational technology as proposed by González-Pérez et al. ( 2019 ).

The analysis of the author’s keywords highlighted the issue of digital competence and digital literacy (de Ovando Calderón and Jara, 2019 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Oria, 2020 ) and, to a lesser extent, digital teaching and media literacy (Tetep and Suparman, 2019 ; Sánchez-Caballé and Esteve-Mon, 2022 ) Also notable were keywords regarding technology in these topics (Roa Banquez et al., 2021 ; Rodríguez-Hoyos et al., 2021 ) (Fig. 3 ).

Main keywords identified in the reviewed articles.

RQ2 What are the trends in research methods observed in the articles?

Studies on digital literacy and digital transformation increased in the last three years; in 2022, it rose 53% compared to the previous year. The most commonly used research method (56%) was quantitative (Guillén-Gámez and Peña, 2020 ; Kim et al., 2018 ; Miguel-Revilla et al., 2020 ). Qualitative methods were found in similar proportions (Kajee, 2018 ; Önger and Çetin, 2018 ), and mixed methods (Pozos Pérez and Tejada Fernández, 2018 ; Techataweewan and Prasertsin, 2018 ) (Fig. 4 ).

Number of published articles during 2015–2022 classified by research method, qualitative, quantitative or mixed method.

Also, the highest number of articles was found in Spain, which represents 32% of the total, and shows an interest in digital transformation and digital literacy issues in higher education institutions; followed by Turkey with ten, the United States with nine, and Chile, China and Mexico with seven research papers each (Fig. 5 ).

Proportion of published articles distributed by country.

RQ3 What are the main findings in digital transformation and digital literacy?

The principal findings center on studies on the level of digital skills, and use of educational technology (Fig. 6 ). The most significant number of articles (121) focuses on digital competency (Blayone, 2018 ; Hong and Kim, 2018 ; Torres-Coronas and Vidal-Blasco, 2015 ; Zhao et al., 2021 ). The use of educational technology involves 2.0 technologies (Novakovich, 2016 ), virtual communities (Robin Sullivan et al., 2018 ), online education, or e-Learning (Aznar Díaz et al., 2019 ; Hamutoğlu et al., 2019 ; Gumede and Badriparsad, 2022 ). Regarding media literacy, it was found in eight articles (Altamirano Galván, 2021 ; Brown et al., 2016 ; Koc and Barut, 2016 ; Jormand et al., 2022 ; Leier and Gruber, 2021 ; Olivia-Dumitrina et al., 2019 ; Reyna and Meier, 2018 ; Robles Moral and Fernández Díaz, 2021 ). Two additional issues identified were environmental protection (Amador-Alarcón et al., 2022 ) and educational process (Makarova et al., 2021 ) both of interest to today’s situation faced by higher education institutions.

Trends, topics and main findings from the reviewed articles.

RQ4 What are the authors’ recommendations for future studies? And RQ5 What are the opportunities identified in the studies?

By correlating these two questions, we identified four opportunities regarding digital literacy and digital transformation (Fig. 7 ); first, that higher education institutions have training programs for both students and teachers to help them develop digital skills (Igbo and Imo, 2020 ; Martzoukou et al., 2020 ; Sandí Delgado, 2020 ), media skills (López-Meneses et al., 2020 ; Reyna and Meier, 2018 ; Romero-Rodriguez et al., 2016 ), and critical thinking (Kocak et al., 2021 ; Nagel et al., 2022 ; Vetter and Sarraf, 2020 ). Second, that the development of skills requires to enhance learning design by incorporating new didactic strategies, and educational technologies in academic programs (Boulton, 2020 ; del Prete and Almenara, 2020 ; Foster, 2020 ; Liesa-Orús et al., 2020 ; McGrew et al., 2019 ), and that the impact of these changes improves learning (Castellanos et al., 2017 ; Dafonte-Gómez et al., 2018 ; Sosa Díaz and Palau Martín, 2018 ).

Frequency of recommendations and opportunities for future studies.

On the other hand, methodological recommendations for future studies included incorporating new instruments and variables to collect more information (Kamardeen and Samaratunga, 2020 ; Khalil and Srinivasan, 2019 ; Varga-Atkins, 2020 ; Vetter and Sarraf, 2020 ). Others pointed to increasing the sample size (Amhag et al., 2019 ; Kolodziejczyk et al., 2020 ; Munoz-Repiso and del Pozo, 2016 ; Pozo-Sánchez et al., 2020 ). To a lesser extent, longitudinal studies were recommended to test the models used (He et al., 2018 ; Johnston, 2020 ). In addition, we found that 28% of the studies did not include recommendations, and 31% did not include opportunities for future studies.

RQ6 What are the stated limitations in digital literacy studies involving digital transformation?

The limitations indicated in the studies refer primarily to the small sample size (45%) (Arango et al., 2020 ; Romero-Tena et al., 2020 ; Tugtekin and Koc, 2020 ). To a lesser extent, limitations were found with the instrument used to carry out the study (Heuling et al., 2021 ; Nikou and Aavakare, 2021 ; Sánchez-Caballé and Esteve-Mon, 2022 ). Problems with the technology used was another limitation highlighted in eight studies (Castellano, 2016 ; Pozo-Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Finally, seven studies reported limitation regarding its feasibility (Dafonte-Gómez et al., 2018 ; Fázik and Steinerová, 2020 ; Kerr et al., 2019 ) and one on the low response obtained (Myyry et al., 2022 ); 36% of the studies did not include limitations (Fig. 8 ).

Frequency of limitations found in the reviewed articles. The figure does not include data from articles that did not specify the limitations (36%).

Incorporating educational trends and new technologies in the educational environment has highlighted the need to continue developing skills that allow their adoption by teachers and students. The interest in digital pedagogies and the study of digital competencies were relevant trends among higher education institutions aiming to use adaptive, intelligent, open, or disruptive technologies and technological models (Fig. 2 ). The transition from the analog to the digital world in both processes and products of organizations is part of their journey towards digital transformation (Hess et al., 2016 ; Tratkowska, 2020 ). It also includes organizational and cultural changes among users and operators (Anderson and Ellerby, 2018 ). However, we must point out that technology is not the end in itself but should be a means to facilitate learning.

Therefore, studies employing the scientific method where the benefit can be determined are relevant, and those that examine areas of opportunity by adopting technologies in the learning process. In the last three years, empirical studies on incorporating educational innovations in teaching practice in higher education institutions increased, most applying mainly quantitative methods (Figs. 4 and 5 ). Spain is the country that stands out with the most studies (64). In some cases, the impetus for these efforts has come from the establishment of educational strategies at the national (SEP, 2019 ; Xiao, 2020 ) and regional level (Rampelt et al., 2019 ). These studies denote international interest in the influence of digital transformation, and digital literacy on the educational process.

Digital technology skills and knowledge are hallmarks of the twenty-first-century generations. Digital literacy and educational technology accounted for 95% of the study findings, and only 4% focused on media literacy. Required job competencies include software and hardware skills, critical thinking, information analysis, and the ability to create and communicate content (Chetty et al., 2018 ; Silva et al., 2021 ; UNESCO, 2017 ). “Workers who can combine ‘human’ skills like empathy, cooperation and negotiation with cognitive skills such as problem-solving, will thrive in an economy that increasingly relies on both types of skill” (Digital Transformation Expert Panel, 2021 ). As the work environment and education continue to evolve along new technologies.

In addition to the conceptual components, the methodological aspects of the studies allow exploring new perspectives of digital transformation in higher education. In the studies reviewed, 44% of the recommendations concerned using new instruments, and exploring new variables, while 56% were about sample size increase and longitudinal studies (Fig. 7 ). Although they have not been conceived or designed for the educational field, the technologies are embedded today in the learning process (González-Pérez et al., 2019 ). Studies on their adoption allow testing and validating methodologies and instruments to have reliable data for their implementation (García-Ruiz et al., 2014 ). Though used simultaneously by teachers and students, the adoption of technology may require the implementation of different strategies or approaches to meet the needs of each group.

The ability to learn and unlearn is being tested by constantly introducing technologies into human activities. The opportunities reported by the studies coincide with the need for institutions to have training programs to develop skills for larger groups (27%). In the case of students, other topics of interest are the use of technology, enriched learning experiences, and security and privacy issues (Fig. 7 ). Organizations’ digital transformation strategy must consider the training of their members and their users because the skills required for the job become increasingly specialized (Anderson and Ellerby, 2018 ; Hess et al., 2016 ; Verhoef et al., 2019 ). In order to get the best out of educational technology, users are required to have a minimum level of digital literacy (Kerr et al., 2019 ). Higher education institutions are a fertile place to continue studies on digital transformation and the development of digital literacy of their members.

Therefore, empirical studies on the experiences and challenges faced by higher education institutions in adopting technologies in the learning process and strategies implemented to train teachers and students are relevant. The limitations reported in the studies focused on methodological issues, with the sample size being the most crucial aspect to consider (45%). These studies were carried out in groups managed by the researcher, making it difficult to project the results. The systematic literature review methodology emphasizes the analysis of variables to answer research questions so that similarities and differences among studies can be identified (Kitchenham et al., 2010 ; Kitchenham and Charters, 2007 ). Inter-institutional collaboration can contribute to achieving results that help find joint strategies to promote the adoption of educational innovations and the development of competencies in both teachers and students.

Limitations

This study was limited to trends in higher education institutions in a specific period of time (2015–2022). Another limitation was the selection of two databases, Scopus and Web of Science, which although they include high-impact journals, articles from other databases were not considered; future research can continue the timeline and include other systems and databases.

Conclusions

The digital transformation of higher education institutions goes beyond its impact on administrative and operational processes. The study showed that teachers have incorporated educational trends, new pedagogies and technologies for didactic purposes, and this has highlighted the need to develop the level of digital literacy of both teachers and students. Higher education institutions, as trainers of future professionals, must acknowledge the need for digital transformation and act upon to develop strategies so students and teachers are prepared for the demands of the workplace.

The pandemic spurred the urgency of developing digital skills for both teachers and students. Technologies they used for socializing and leisure became necessary tools for study and work. Higher education institutions are conducting studies on their experiences of adopting educational technologies and the impact on their users. Although related empirical studies on media literacy were scarce, since it is linked to the use of technology, future studies have an opportunity to assess how it develops in the following years. These should examine teachers’ and students’ performance, their critical capacity as media users, and content creators.

The development of teachers’ digital competencies involves not only the mastery of technology but also the improvement of their teaching practice with the appropriate pedagogical use of technology to contribute to student learning. There are opportunities for higher education institutions in measuring digital competencies to find strengths and weaknesses to focus their training programs. The same applies to students, who should be provided with the relevant training for the development of digital skills and prevent the lack of these from becoming an obstacle to their performance in the classroom.

This study aimed to identify the state of digital transformation and digital literacy in higher education institutions and their impact on students and teachers. Digital transformation and new technologies are generating complex environments that demand the development of digital and high-level skills. Technological progress provides opportunities to enhance the learning process. Research must continue to assess the performance and students’ learning gains. This study can serve as a basis for higher education institutions interested in exploring educational innovations to identify these implementations and their outcomes and seek inter-institutional collaborations with common interests.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in the current study are available in Figshare repository: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21972170 .

Altamirano Galván SG (2021) Perfil de alfabetización mediática de estudiantes y docentes de educación superior. CPU-e, Revista de Investigación Educativa 32:88–110. https://doi.org/10.25009/cpue.v0i32.2735

Article   Google Scholar  

Amador-Alarcón MP, Torres-Gastelú CA, Lagunes-Domínguez A, Medina-Cruz H, Argüello-Rosales CA (2022) Perceptions of environmental protection of university students: a look through digital competences in Mexico. Sustainability 14(18):11141. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811141

Amaro-Jiménez C, Hungerford-Kresser H, Pole K (2016) Teaching with a technological twist: exit tickets via Twitter in literacy classrooms. J Adolesc Adult Lit 60(3):305–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.572

Amhag L, Hellström L, Stigmar M (2019) Teacher educators’ use of digital tools and needs for digital competence in higher education. J Digit Learn Teach Educ 35(4):203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1646169

Anderson C, Ellerby W (2018) Digital Maturity Model. Achieving digital maturity to drive growth. In: Deloitte (Issue February). https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/deloitte-digital-maturity-model.pdf

Andrew M, Taylorson J, Langille DJ, Grange A, Williams N (2018) Student attitudes towards technology and their preferences for learning tools/devices at two universities in the UAE. J Inf Technol Educ Res 17:309–344. https://doi.org/10.28945/4111

Arango DAG, Fernández JEV, Carrillo JAO, Rojas ÓAC, Villa CFH (2020) Dimensions of digital competence in university teachers: Relational analysis based on components | Dimensiones de competencia digital en docentes universitarios: Análisis relacional basado en componentes. RISTI-Revista Iberica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informacao 2020(E28):945–960

Google Scholar  

Astudillo Torres MP (2019) Aplicación de la realidad aumentada en las prácticas educativas universitarias. RELATEC: Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa 18(2):203–218. https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.18.2.203

Aznar Díaz I, Cáceres Reche MP, Romero Rodríguez JM (2019) Digital competence of an E-learning tutor: an emerging model of good teaching practices in ICT. Texto Livre 12(3):49–68. https://doi.org/10.17851/1983-3652.12.3.49-68

Bilbao Aiastui E, Arruti Gómez A, Carballedo Morillo R (2021) A systematic literature review about the level of digital competences defined by DigCompEdu in higher education. Aula Abierta 50(4):841–850. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.50.4.2021.841-850

Blayone T (2018) Reexamining digital-learning readiness in higher education: Positioning digital competencies as key factors and a profile application as a readiness tool. Int J E-Learn Corp Gov Healthcare High Educ 17(4):425–451

Bond M, Marín VI, Dolch, Bedenlier S, Zawacki-Richter O (2018) Digital transformation in German higher education: student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1

Boulton P (2020) Digitally proficient but disconnected from the outdoor world? A reflection on pedagogies used in an Early Years degree in higher education. J Appl Res High Educ 13(1):195–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2019-0066

Brown C, Czerniewicz L, Noakes T (2016) Online content creation: looking at students’ social media practices through a Connected Learning lens. Learn Media Technol 41(1):140–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1107097

Bucea-Manea-Ţoniş R, Bucea-Manea-Ţoniş R, Simion VE, Ilic D, Braicu C, Manea N (2020) Sustainability in higher education: The relationship between work-life balance and XR e-learning facilities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145872

Carl A, Strydom S (2017) e-Portfolio as reflection tool during teaching practice: The interplay between contextual and dispositional variables. South Afr J Educ 37(1). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n1a1250

Castellano J (2016) Advanced media english–a modern PrOCALL course. CALL-EJ 17(1):52–66

Castellanos A, Sánchez C, Calderero JF (2017) Nuevos modelos tecnopedagógicos. Competencia digital de los alumnos universitarios. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa 19(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2017.19.1.1148

Chetty K, Qigui L, Gcora N, Josie J, Wenwei L, Fang C (2018). Bridging the digital divide: measuring digital literacy. Economics. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2018-23

Cronin C (2017) Openness and praxis: exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. Int Rev Res Open Dist Learn 18(5):15–34. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096

Dafonte-Gómez A, García-Crespo O, Ramahi-García D (2018) ‘Flipped learning’ y competencia digital: diseño tecnopedagógico y percepción del alumnado universitario. Index Comunicación 8(2):275–294. http://plataformarevistascomunicacion.org/2018/11/articulo-flipped-learning-competencia-digital-diseno-tecnopedagogico-percepcion-del-alumnado-universitario/

de Ovando Calderón JS, Jara VJ (2019) Digital competence of health sciences teachers of a Chilean university Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educacion 56:193–211. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2019.i56.10

del Prete A, Almenara JC (2020) Use of the virtual learning environment among higher education teaching staff: a gender analysis | El uso del Ambiente Virtual de Aprendizaje entre el profesorado de educación superior: Un análisis de género. Revista de Educacion a Distancia, 20(62). https://doi.org/10.6018/RED.400061

Digital Transformation Expert Panel. (2021) The Learning Country. Digital Transformation Skills Strategy. https://www.digitalskillsformation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Digital-Transformation-Skills-Strategy-010521.pdf?v=2

Divya P, Mohamed Haneefa K (2018) Digital reading competency of students: A study in universities in Kerala. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol 38(2):88–94. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.38.2.12233

Fázik J, Steinerová J (2020) Technologies, knowledge and truth: the three dimensions of information literacy of university students in Slovakia. J Doc https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2020-0086

Feriady M, Nurkhin A, Mahmud N, Setiani R, Astuti DP (2020) Influence of organizational suport and digital literacy on lecturer acceptance of e-learning in indonesia: a modification of technologi acceptance model. Int J Sci Technol Res 9(1):2229–2233

Fischer M, Imgrund F, Janiesch C, Winkelmann A (2020) Strategy archetypes for digital transformation: defining meta objectives using business process management. Inf Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103262

Foster B (2020) Information literacy beyond librarians: a data/methods triangulation approach to investigating disciplinary IL teaching practices. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract 15(1):20–37. https://doi.org/10.18438/EBLIP29635

García-Ruiz R, Ramírez-García A, Rodríguez-Rosell M (2014) Educación en alfabetización mediática para una nueva ciudadanía prosumidora. Comunicar XXII(43):15–23. https://doi.org/10.3916/C43-2014-01

George-Reyes CE, Ramírez-Montoya MS, López-Caudana EO (2023) Imbrication of the Metaverse in the complexity of education 4.0: Approach from an analysis of the literatura [Imbricación del Metaverso en la complejidad de la educación 4.0: Aproximación desde un análisis de la literatura]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación 66:199–237. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.97337

González-Pérez LI, Ramírez-Montoya MS, García-Peñalvo FJ (2019) Innovación educativa en estudios sobre el desarrollo y uso de la tecnología: un mapeo sistemático. In: Ramírez Montoya MS, & Valenzuela González JR (eds.), Innovación educativa: tendencias globales de investigación e implicaciones prácticas (Primera, pp. 137–160). Ediciones OCTAEDRO, S. L. https://octaedro.com/libro/innovacion-educativa-tendencias-globales-de-investigacion-e-implicaciones-practicas/

Guillén-Gámez FD, Peña MP (2020) Univariate analysis of digital competence in physical education: an empirical study | Análisis Univariante de la Competencia Digital en Educación Física: Un estudio empírico. Retos 37:326–332

Gumede L, Badriparsad N (2022) Online teaching and learning through the students’ eyes –Uncertainty through the COVID-19 lockdown: a qualitative case study in Gauteng province, South Africa. Radiography 28(1):193–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2021.10.018

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hamutoğlu NB, Savaşçı M, Sezen-Gültekin G (2019) Digital literacy skills and attitudes towards e-learning. J Educ Fut, August, 93–107. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.509293

He T, Zhu C, Questier F (2018) Predicting digital informal learning: an empirical study among Chinese University students. Asia Pac Educ Rev 19(1):79–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9517-x

Hess T, Matt C, Benlian A, Wiesböck F (2016) Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Q Executive 15(2):103–119. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291349362

Heuling LS, Wild S, Vest A (2021) Digital competences of prospective engineers and science teachers: a latent profile and correspondence analysis. Int J Educ Math Sci Technol 9(4):760–782. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1831

Hong AJ, Kim HJ (2018) College students’ Digital Readiness for Academic Engagement (DRAE) Scale: scale development and validation. Asia-Pac Educ Res 27(4):303–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0387-0

Igbo HU, Imo NT (2020) Digital libraries and access to information in Nigerian Federal Universities: The impact of technology variables. J Inf Knowl Manage 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649220500136

Johnston N (2020) The shift towards digital literacy in Australian University libraries: developing a digital literacy framework. J Aust Libr Inf Asso 69(1):93–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2020.1712638

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Jormand H, Bashirian S, Barati M, Rezapur-Shahkolai F, Babamiri M (2022) Evaluation of a web-based randomized controlled trial educational intervention based on media literacy on preventing substance abuse among college students, applying the integrated social marketing approach: a study protocol. Trials 23(1):1006. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06913-6

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kajee L (2018) Teacher education students engaging with digital identity narratives. S Afr J Educ 38(2). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n2a1501

Kamardeen I, Samaratunga M (2020) Digiexplanation driven assignments for personalising learning in construction education. Constr Econ Build 20(3):103–123. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v20i3.7000

Kerr J, Dale VH, Gyurko F (2019) Evaluation of a MOOC Design Mapping Framework (MDMF): Experiences of academics and learning technologists. Electron J E-Learn 17(1):38–51. http://www.ejel.org/volume17/issue1/p38

Khalil R, Srinivasan V (2019) Massive open online courses/ MOOCS: a gateway to enrich e-learning in management education. Int J Innov Creat Change 7(5):112–124

Kim HJ, Hong AJ, Song H-D (2018) The relationships of family, perceived digital competence and attitude, and learning agility in sustainable student engagement in higher education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124635

Kitchenham B, Pretorius R, Budgen D, Brereton OP, Turner M, Niazi M, Linkman S (2010) Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-a tertiary study. Inf Softw Technol 52(8):792–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006

Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500

Koc M, Barut E (2016) Development and validation of New Media Literacy Scale (NMLS) for university students. Comput Hum Behav 63:834–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.035

Kocak O, Coban M, Aydin A, Cakmak N (2021) The mediating role of critical thinking and cooperativity in the 21st century skills of higher education students. Think Ski Creat 42:100967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100967

Kolodziejczyk I, Gibbs P, Nembou C, Sagrista MR (2020) Digital skills at divine word university, Papua New Guinea. IAFOR J Educ 8(2):107–124. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.2.06

Kör H, Erbay H, Engin M, Dünder E (2017) An examination of the correlation between science and technology attitudes scale, frequency of smartphone usage scale and lifelong learning scale scores using the structural equation model. J Baltic Sci Educ 16(1):86–99

Leier V, Gruber A (2021) Team New Zealand-Sweden-Germany: a joint venture exploring language learning in digital spaces. JALT CALL J 17(3):298–324. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v17n3.410

Liesa-Orús M, Latorre-Cosculluela C, Vázquez-Toledo S, Sierra-Sánchez V (2020) The technological challenge facing higher education professors: perceptions of ICT tools for developing 21st Century skills. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135339

Liu ZJ, Tretyakova N, Fedorov V, Kharakhordina M (2020) Digital literacy and digital didactics as the basis for new learning models development. Int J Emerg Technol Learn 15(14):4–18. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i14.14669

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

López-Meneses E, Sirignano FM, Vázquez-Cano E, Ramírez-Hurtado JM (2020) University students’ digital competence in three areas of the DigCom 2.1 model: a comparative study at three European universities. Australas J Educ Technol 36(3):69–88. https://doi.org/10.14742/AJET.5583

Makarova O, Ldokova G, Egorova R (2021) Analysis of students’ views of the quality of pedagogical education in Russia. Int J Educ Math Sci Technol 9(3):462–481. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1624

Manca S, Bocconi S, Gleason B (2021) “Think globally, act locally”: a glocal approach to the development of social media literacy. Comput Educ 160:104025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104025

Martzoukou K, Fulton C, Kostagiolas P, Lavranos C (2020) A study of higher education students’ self-perceived digital competences for learning and everyday life online participation. J Doc 76(6):1413–1458. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2020-0041

McGrew S, Smith M, Breakstone J, Ortega T, Wineburg S (2019) Improving university students’ web savvy: an intervention study. Br J Educ Psychol 89(3):485–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12279

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Miguel-Revilla D, Martínez-Ferreira JM, Sánchez-Agustí M (2020) Assessing the digital competence of educators in social studies: an analysis in initial teacher training using the TPACK-21 model. Australas J Educ Technol 36(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5281

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Morin E (2019) Pensar la Complejidad. Crisis ymetamorfosis. Universitat de Valencia

Morin E (2020) Cambiemos de Via. Lecciones de la pandemia. Paidos

Munoz-Repiso A, del Pozo M (2016) Analysis of the digital competences of graduates of university degrees to be a teacher. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnologia Educativa-RELATEC 15(2):155–168. https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.15.2.155

Murray MC, Pérez J (2015) Informing and performing: a study comparing adaptive learning to traditional learning. Inform Sci 18(1):111–125. https://doi.org/10.28945/2165

Myyry L, Kallunki V, Katajavuori N, Repo S, Tuononen T, Anttila H, Kinnunen P, Haarala-Muhonen A, Pyörälä E (2022) COVID-19 accelerating academic teachers’ digital competence in distance teaching. Front Educ 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.770094

Nagel M-T, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O, Fischer J (2022) Validation of newly developed tasks for the assessment of generic Critical Online Reasoning (COR) of university students and graduates. Front Educ 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.914857

Nikou S, Aavakare M (2021) An assessment of the interplay between literacy and digital technology in higher education. Educ Inf Technol 26(4):3893–3915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10451-0

Novakovich J (2016) Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. J Comput Assist Learn 32(1):16–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12114

Olivia-Dumitrina N, Casanovas M, Capdevila Y (2019) Academic writing and the internet: Cyber-plagiarism amongst university students. J New Approach Educ Res 8(2):112–125. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2019.7.407

Önger S, Çetin T (2018) An investigation into digital literacy views of social studies preservice teachers in the context of authentic learning. Rev Int Geogr Educ Online 8(1):109–124

Oria B (2020) Edmodo como herramienta de aprendizaje telecolaborativo online en el aula de inglés. Encuentro. 28:49–70

Paskevicius M, Irvine V (2019) Open education and learning design: Open pedagogy in praxis. J Interact Media Educ 2019(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.512

Patiño A, Ramírez-Montoya MS, Buenestado-Fernández M (2023) Active learning and education 4.0 for complex thinking training: analysis of two case studies in open education. Smart Learn Environ 10(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00229-x

Pinto Molina M, Gómez-Hernández J-A, Sales D, Cuevas-Cerveró A, Fernández Pascual R, Caballero Mariscal D, Guerrero-Quesada DJ, Navalón C (2019) Aprender y enseñar competencias digitales en un entorno móvil: avances de una investigación aplicada a profesorado y alumnado universitario de Ciencias Sociales. Revista Ibero-Americana de Ciencia Da Informacao 12(2):585–596. https://doi.org/10.26512/10.26512/rici.v

Ponce P, Ramirez R, Ramirez-Montoya MS, Molina A, MacCleery B, Ascanio M (2022) From understanding a simple DC motor to developing an electric vehicle AI controller rapid prototype using MATLAB-Simulink, real-time simulation and complex thinking. Front Educ 7:941972. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.941972

Power J, Kannara V (2016) Best-practice model for technology enhanced learning in the creative arts. Res Learn Technol 24. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.30231

Pozos Pérez KV, Tejada Fernández J (2018) Competencias digitales en docentes de educación superior: niveles de dominio y necesidades formativas. Revista Digital de Investigación En Docencia Universitaria 12(2):59–87. https://doi.org/10.19083/ridu.2018.712

Pozo-Sánchez S, López-Belmonte J, Fuentes-Cabrera A, Moreno-Guerrero A-J (2020) Incidence of retro-innovation in higher education. Radio and television as complementary tools when using the educational model known as flipped learning. Form Univ 13(3):139–146. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062020000300139

Ramírez-Montoya MS, Castillo-Martínez IM, Sanabria-Zepeda JC, Miranda J (2022) Complex thinking in the framework of education 4.0 and open innovation—a systematic literature review. J Open Innov Technol Market Complex 8(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010004

Rampelt F, Orr D, Knoth A (2019) Bologna Digital 2020–White Paper on Digitalisation in the European Higher Education Area. Publisher: Geschäftsstelle Hochschulforum Digitalisierung beim Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft e.V

Reyna J, Meier P (2018). Using the Learner-Generated Digital Media (LGDM) framework in tertiary science education: a pilot study. Educ Sci 8(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030106

Roa Banquez K, Viviana Rojas Torres CG, González Rincón LJ, Ortiz Ortiz EG (2021) El docente en la era 4.0: una propuesta de formación digital que fortalezca el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Revista Virtual Universidad Católica Del Norte 63:126–160. https://doi.org/10.35575/rvucn.n63a6

Robin Sullivan R, Neu V, Yang F (2018) Faculty development to promote effective instructional technology integration: a qualitative examination of reflections in an online community. Online Learn J 22(4):341–359. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1373

Robles Moral FJ, Fernández Díaz M (2021) Future primary school teachers’ digital competence in teaching science through the use of social media. Sustainability 13(5):2816. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052816

Rodríguez-Hoyos C, Fueyo Gutiérrez A, Hevia Artime I (2021) Competencias digitales del profesorado para innovar en la docencia universitaria. Analizando el uso de los dispositivos móviles. Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación 61:71–97. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.86305

Romero-Rodriguez L, Torres-Toukoumidis D, Pérez-Rodríguez M, Aguaded I (2016) Analfanauts and fourth screen: lack of infodiets and media and information literacy in Latin American University Students. Fonseca-J Commun 12:11–25. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/60674744.pdf

Romero-Rodríguez JM, Ramirez-Montoya, MS, Glasserman-Morales LD, Ramos Navas-Parejo M (2022) Collaborative online international learning between Spain and Mexico: a microlearning experience to enhance creativity in complexity. Educ+Train. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2022-0259

Romero-Tena R, Barragán-Sánchez R, Llorente-Cejudo C, Palacios-Rodríguez A (2020) The challenge of initial training for early childhood teachers. A cross sectional study of their digital competences. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114782

Sánchez-Caballé A, Esteve-Mon FM (2022) Digital teaching competence of university teachers: a comparative study at two European universities. Australas J Educ Technol 50–61. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7408

Sandí Delgado JC (2020) Desarrollo de competencias digitales en el profesorado a través de juegos serios: un estudio de caso aplicado en la Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR). E-Ciencias de La Información. https://doi.org/10.15517/eci.v10i2.38946

SEP (2019) Agenda Digital Educativa ADE.mx. In: Secretaría de Educación Pública. https://infosen.senado.gob.mx/sgsp/gaceta/64/2/2020-02-05-1/assets/documentos/Agenda_Digital_Educacion.pdf

Sichel CE, Javdani S, Ueberall S, Liggett R (2019) Leveraging youths’ digital literacies: the E-Responder social media violence interruption model and pilot evaluation. J Prevent Intervent Community 47(2):76–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1582145

Sillat LH, Tammets K, Laanpere M (2021) Digital competence assessment methods in higher education: a systematic literature review. Educ Scie 11(8):402. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080402

Silva MB, Borges G, Fantin M, Almeida M, Aguaded I (2021) Media competence in children aged 9 to 12 in Brazilian settings. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Da Comunicação 44(1):21–45. http://portcom.intercom.org.br/revistas/index.php/revistaintercom/article/view/3487/2499

Sosa Díaz MJ, Palau Martín RF (2018) Flipped classroom para adquirir la competencia digital docente: una experiencia didáctica en la Educación Superior. Pixel-Bit Revista de Medios y Educación 52:37–54. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2018.i52.03

Spieler B, Grandl M, Ebner M, Slany W (2020) Bridging the gap: a computer science Pre-MOOC for first semester students making with kids view project. Electron J E-Learn. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.3.004

Starkey L (2020) A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Camb J Educ 50(1):37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867

Suárez-Brito P, López-Caudana EO, Baena-Rojas JJ, Ramírez-Montoya MS (2022) Eliciting complex thinking through open educational resource projects. J Soc Stud Educ Res 13(4):56–77. https://jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/4472

Tang CM, Chaw LY (2016) Digital literacy: A prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning environment? Electron J E-Learn 14(1):54–65

Techataweewan W, Prasertsin U (2018) Development of digital literacy indicators for Thai undergraduate students using mixed method research. Kasetsart J Soc Sci 39(2):215–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.07.001

Tetep, Suparman A (2019) Students’ digital media literacy: effects on social character. Int J Recent Technol Eng 8(2 Special Issue 9):394–399. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B1091.0982S919

Ting Y-L (2015) Tapping into students’ digital literacy and designing negotiated learning to promote learner autonomy. Internet High Educ 26:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.004

Tømte C, Enochsson A-B, Buskqvist U, Kårstein A (2015) Educating online student teachers to master professional digital competence: The TPACK-framework goes online. Comput Educat 84:26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.005

Torres-Coronas T, Vidal-Blasco M-A (2015) Students and employers perception about the development of digital skills in higher education | Percepción de estudiantes y empleadores sobre el desarrollo de competencias digitales en la educación superior. Revista de Educacion 367:63–89. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-367-283

Torres-Gastelú CA, Cordero-Guzmán DM, Soto-Ortíz JL, Mory-Alvarado A (2019) Influence of factors about the manifestation of digital citizenship. Prisma Soc 26:27–49

Tratkowska K (2020) Digital transformation: theoretical backgrounds of digital change. Manage Sci 24(4):32–37. https://doi.org/10.15611/ms.2019.4.05

Tugtekin EB, Koc M (2020) Understanding the relationship between new media literacy, communication skills, and democratic tendency: Model development and testing. New Media Soc 22(10):1922–1941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819887705

UNESCO (2017) Working group on education: Digital skills for life and work. In: Broadband commission for sustainable development

Varga-Atkins T (2020) Beyond description: In search of disciplinary digital capabilities through signature pedagogies. Res Learn Technol 28:1–19. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2467

Vázquez-Parra JC, Cruz-Sandoval M, Carlos-Arroyo M (2022) Social entrepreneurship and complex thinking: a bibliometric study. Sustainability 14(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013187

Verhoef PC, Broekhuizen T, Bart Y, Bhattacharya A, Qi Dong J, Fabian N, Haenlein M (2019) Digital transformation: a multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. J Bus Res https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022

Vetter MA, Sarraf KS (2020) Assessing the Art + feminism Edit-a-thon for Wikipedia literacy, learning outcomes, and critical thinking. Interact Learn Environ https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1805772

Wang HL, Almeida S, Frino B, Wijayawardena K, Rauf A, Hardie G (2022) Dialogue matters a lot: autoethnographic reflections of an Australian teaching team managing first-year undergraduate students. Int J Manage Educ 20(3):100699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100699

Williamson B, Hogan A (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in / of education in the context of Covid-19. In: Educ Int Res (Issue July). Education International. https://codeactsineducation.wordpress.com/2020/07/14/evolution-global-education-industry-during-pandemic/

Xiao J (2020) Digital transformation in higher education: critiquing the five-year development plans (2016-2020) of 75 Chinese Universities. Dist Educ 40(4):515–533

Zhao Y, Sánchez Gómez MC, Pinto Llorente AM, Zhao L (2021) Digital competence in higher education: students’ perception and personal factors. Sustainability 13(21):12184. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112184

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the support from Tecnologico de Monterrey through the “Challenge-Based Research Funding Program 2022”. Project ID # I003-IFE001-C2-T3–T. Also, academic support from Writing Lab, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, México.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico

Silvia Farias-Gaytan & Maria-Soledad Ramirez-Montoya

University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain

Ignacio Aguaded

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Three authors contributed to the content of the article, conceptualizing the approach: IA, M-SR-M; supporting the study theoretically and methodologically: SF-G, M-SR-M; and discussing the data: SF-G, IA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Farias-Gaytan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Farias-Gaytan, S., Aguaded, I. & Ramirez-Montoya, MS. Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: a systematic literature review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 386 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01875-9

Download citation

Received : 31 August 2022

Accepted : 20 June 2023

Published : 07 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01875-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Digital proficiency: assessing knowledge, attitudes, and skills in digital transformation, health literacy, and artificial intelligence among university nursing students.

• Ebtsam Aly Abou Hashish
• Hend Alnajjar

BMC Medical Education (2024)

Digital Literacy, Sustainable Development and Radiation Regulation: Policy and Information Systems Implications

• Farid Gasmi
• Paul Noumba Um

Information Systems Frontiers (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Digital Literacy: Definition, Theoretical Framework, and Competencies

2012, COERC 2012

Related Papers

Advances in Library and Information Science

Shea Kerkhoff

Digital literacy involves any number of digital reading and writing techniques across multiple media forms. These media include words, texts, visual displays, motion graphics, audio, video, and multimodal forms. There are myriad cognitive processes at play, along a continuum from consumption to production when a reader is immersed with digital content as well as with print text. The purpose of this chapter is to (1) define digital literacy from multiple theoretical viewpoints, (2) illustrate how the definition continues to evolve in light of emerging technologies, and (3) discuss the cognitive, social, and affective dimensions of digital literacy as it is a key requirement in contemporary K-12 education.

Suzanne Flannigan

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Alena Hašková

Sara Pífano

This article investigates the tendency of those who explore the topic of 'electronic literacies' to downplay the fundamental nature and importance of the perceptual habits associated with print literacy, and highlights the opposite tendency of reading and writing specialists to decontextualize the acquisition of these fundamental skills from the character of the culture at large. Making the case for a perspective located somewhere between these two positions, which attends to cognitive and neurological distinctions between our media interfaces, the author surveys a number of purported social trends in the United States. Among these are the increased rates of television viewing; the inadequacy of writing practice and instruction in American educational institutions; and the migration of writing, typing, and reading to the computer screen. In relation to these trends, he considers our prospects for the cultivation of a type of 'secondary literacy', in order that we might attain a kind of equilibrium within the cultural conditions that Walter Ong describes as 'secondary orality' – a phenomenon inherent in our general reliance on the most common electronic communication forms, which, in the communication contexts that they create, predominantly employ the spoken word and moving imagery. Most scholars concerned with the topic of 'electronic literacies' tend no longer to define 'literacy' in any singular or monolithic way, but do so, rather, in a pluralistic and holistic manner that is more widely understood as 'media-literacy'. Catherine Beavis, for instance, observed early on (in Snyder, 1998) how multimedia and digital technologies were changing what we understand as literacy, and suggested that in our age of new information technologies we would require at least five new 'literacies'. These she listed as 'multimedia authoring skills', 'multimedia critical analysis', 'cyberspace exploration strategies', 'cyberspace navigation skills', and 'the capacity to negotiate and deconstruct images, both visual and verbal'. Similarly, for Bertram Bruce (2003), literacy is 'an assortment of practices, or multiliteracies' that we actively construct; and, fundamentally, it is the space in which we create meaning in interaction with others. Such spaces, Bruce suggests, include the different academic disciplines that define or demand different ways to represent meaning, the different social practices that draw upon different communicative means, the different cultures that point to different primary literacies, and the different media that demand different critical faculties. Bruce emphasizes that the activity of 'literacy' is never frozen, and counsels, therefore, that it is imprudent to try to isolate exactly the skills one needs to learn. Evidently, 'literate' individuals from this point of view amount to amateur semioticians at the very least. And though I accept the spirit of such accolades to a vibrant 'transliteracy' (that is, the ability to read, to write, and to interact across a broad range of media platforms), here I suggest that these accounts of what constitutes 'literacy' in the information age tend not to make enough of the word's original sense, which, of course, denotes the skills involved with learning how to read and write. At the same time, one can observe the opposite tendency of reading and writing specialists to decontextualize the acquisition of these fundamental skills from the character of the culture at large. Making the case for a perspective located somewhere between these two positions, here I survey a number of social trends in the United States – among which are the increased rates of

Digital kompetanse =

Colin Lankshear

Piercing Purple

Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition

Heidi Julien

The concept of digital literacy must be understood in the context of “literacies” writ broadly. Contemporary understandings of literacy have expanded the traditional definition that includes reading and writing (possibly also including numeracy and oralcy), to include interpretive and creative abilities or competencies across a range of texts, in written and other forms. Digital literacy, from a pragmatic point of view, is the set of skills, knowledge and attitudes required to access digital information effectively, efficiently, and ethically. It includes knowing how to evaluate digital information, and how to use it in decision-making. Digital literacy certainly has the potential to contribute to far-reaching and important personal and societal consequences. Thus, increasing focus on development of digital literacy, however defined, should be a policy priority for all sectors.

Journal of Educational Change

Yoram Eshet

This paper focuses on the discussion of the digital literacy skills that are considered necessary for effective and mindful learning in the emerging digital environments. To date, the discourse on this important subject has been practice-oriented, and lacks a sound integrative framework and theoretical foundation. This grave lacuna in the current discourse on learning in general, and on learning in the digital culture in particular, calls for a clear and theoretically-grounded view of the basic literacies required for effective learning in digital ...

RELATED PAPERS

Theoretical and Applied Mechanics

Nikola Maricic

Aisyah Fitria F. C.

Oscar Cordón García

Dasrizal NineSeven

Arkan Alamsyah

Dwiko Permadi

Pós. Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Arquitetura e Urbanismo da FAUUSP

Rafael Barreto Pinto

Neetu Gouda

MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi

Hakan Bakkal

The Journal of Social Theory in Art Education

Patricia Amburgy

BMJ Case Reports

Seyed Ali Alamdaran

Francisco Rauan Coelho de Almeida

Pengrajin Besek Bambu Tulungagung

bimma tusongsongga

Dirasat: Jurnal Manajemen dan Pendidikan Islam

Puspa Mia Widiyaningsih FAI

hussam hasson

Muhammad Zia ur Rehman

Zia ur Rehman Rizvi

Communications in Algebra

Marco Fontana

MONUMENTA MUSICAE IN POLONIA

Agnese (Agnieszka) Pudlis

Elena Fomenko

Jurnal Permadi: Perancangan, Manufaktur, Material dan Energi

awal saputra

Computer Aided Geometric Design

Yongjie Zhang

International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health

Mohammed Sani

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Greger Lindberg

Revista de pedagogie

IOAN NEACȘU

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Digital Literacy, Sustainable Development and Radiation Regulation: Policy and Information Systems Implications

• Published: 06 May 2024

Cite this article

• Farid Gasmi 1 ,
• Paul Noumba Um 2 ,
• Laura Recuero Virto 3 &
• Peter Saba   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6412-5051 3  

13 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This paper explores the convergence of development economics, regulatory policies, and public health considerations within the field of Information Systems (IS) research, focusing specifically on 5G and 6G mobile technologies. Despite the widespread deployment of these technologies and their potential health implications, there is a limited understanding in IS literature on why countries adopt varying thresholds for radiation regulation. Our study, analyzing data from 124 countries, uncovered an inverted U-shaped relationship between digital literacy and the rigidity of radiation regulation. This finding reveals that nations with lower digital literacy levels tend to enforce stricter regulations, whereas those with higher literacy levels adopt more relaxed policies. By highlighting how digital literacy, a critical aspect of the digital divide, significantly influences regulatory frameworks in telecommunications, this study contributes to filling the gap in IS research. This underscores the necessity of informed and transparent regulatory decision making, especially in countries with diverse levels of digital literacy. Calling for a multidisciplinary approach to policy formulation, our work enriches the broader discourse in IS research, underlining the pivotal role of digital literacy in shaping both the access and regulatory landscapes of emerging technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction. Dealing with Multiple Uncertainties in Post-Soviet Health, Technologies, and Politics

The impact of digital technology on health of populations affected by humanitarian crises: recent innovations and current gaps.

Indigenizing a Developing Country’s Digitization Agenda: Re-visioning ICTs in Ghana

Data availability.

The data underlying this paper are available in the paper, as well as all data sources. The dataset constructed for this paper contains observations of a sample of 97 countries worldwide that apply the international mobile station exposure limits (ICNIRP, 2020 or ICNIRP, 1998 ) or the US national mobile network limits (FCC, 1996 ), and another sample of 27 countries worldwide that apply restrictive mobile station exposure limits, for which there is sufficient data on the determinants of interest (see Table  1 in the main text). Table 6 (see appendices) lists the 124 countries selected for the study according to the type of EMF legislation (standard exposure limits, restrictive exposure limits) and following the World Bank regional classification. These data are based on the authors’ elaborations building on ITU ( 2021 ) surveys, GSMA ( 2022 ), and Chiaraviglio et al. ( 2022 ) datasets. Table 7 (see appendices) lists the 59 countries that have 5G among those countries in the whole dataset in Table 6 (see appendices). Within this 5G dataset, there were 45 countries with standard exposure limits and 14 countries with restrictive exposure limits. For the proxies of the determinants of EMF legislation, data were collected according to the main hypothesis considered in this paper, namely, digital literacy (see Table  1 in the main text), and some control variables regrouped under the label others (controls) and some instruments were added. Table 8 (see appendices) lists the data content and sources.

https://www.ft.com/content/8eee1ecd-59ef-474a-8d7f-909da735063a

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/pay-people-to-get-pylons-up-faster-says-key-uk-report/2-1-1496497

https://sdgs.un.org/goals

https://www.broadbandcommission.org

https://www.icnirp.org

Probit and Logit models perform similarly independently of the sample size, the correlation structure, and the root mean square error (Jose et al., 2020 ).

Probit models facilitate the analysis of the effect of changes in the values of explanatory variables on probability estimates. With OLS models, the estimated parameters are constant for all values of the explanatory regressor. Furthermore, under Probit models the probability estimates fall in the 0–1 range and result in smaller Type I errors, i.e., probabilities of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true, than OLS models (Stone and Rasp, 1991 ).

The error term \({\varepsilon }_{i}\) is heteroskedastic and nominal significance levels associated with the test statistics may not be reliable. See McFadden ( 1972 ) for a more detailed discussion.

This sample size with a dichotomous dependent variable is common in accounting studies.

Data from GSMA and Chiaraviglio et al. ( 2022 ) differ on the country coverage. There are divergent values between those sources for Bulgaria and Iraq and the latter has been excluded from the datasets used in this paper.

Decentralization data in this paper are based on Ivanyna and Shah ( 2012 ) given their country coverage.

These figures are available from the authors upon request.

Estimations were done with Stata.

In general terms, children may be more exposed to radiation than adults because of their morphology and anatomy, a moderate use of mobile phones is recommended prioritizing the use of hand-free kits to avoid the proximity with the head (ANSES, 2016 ).

Abdelfattah, B. M., Bagchi, K., Udo, G., & Kirs, P. (2010). Understanding the internet digital divide: An exploratory multi-nation individual-level analysis. In AMCIS 2010 proceedings (p. 542)  https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/542

Agence Nationale de Fréquences (ANFR). (2019). International technical workshop on 5G and EMF exposure for administrations. April 17th, 2019, ANFR, Maisons-Alfort, France. https://www.anfr.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/documents/expace/workshop-5G/20190417-international-workshop-5Gexposure.pdf

Agence Nationale Sécurité Sanitaire Alimentaire Nationale (ANSES). (2016). Exposition aux radiofréquences et santé des enfants. Avis de l’ANSES. Rapport d’expertise collective. https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/AP2012SA0091Ra.pdf

Agence Nationale Sécurité Sanitaire Alimentaire Nationale (ANSES). (2022). Exposition aux champs électromagnétiques liée au déploiement de la technologie 5G . Avis actualisé de ANSES. Rapport d’expertise collective. https://anses.hal.science/anses-03792878

Aissaoui, N. (2022). The digital divide: A literature review and some directions for future research in light of COVID-19. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 71 (8/9), 686–708.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alam, K., & Imran, S. (2015). The digital divide and social inclusion among refugee migrants: A case in regional Australia. Information Technology & People, 28 (2), 344–365.

Albizri, A. (2020). Theory-based taxonomy of feedback application design for electricity conservation: A user-centric approach. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 46 (1), 16.

Google Scholar  

Allen, D., Karanasios, S., & Slavova, M. (2011). Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (4), 776–788.

Anthonysamy, L. (2020). Digital literacy deficiencies in digital learning among undergraduates. In Understanding digital industry  : Proceedings of the conference on managing digital industry, technology and entrepreneurship (CoMDITE 2019), July 10-11, 2019.

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2021). A report to government on the adequacy of digital platforms’ disinformation and news quality measures. ACMA report . Melbourne: ACMA Press.

Baghdadi, Y., Harfouche, A., & Musso, M. (2020). ICT for an Inclusive World . Springer International Publishing. (Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation).

Book   Google Scholar  

Bandara, P., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: It is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2 (12), e512–e514.

Barua, S. (2020). Financing sustainable development goals: A review of challenges and mitigation strategies. Business Strategy & Development, 3 (3), 277–293.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22 (5), 269–278.

Bashi, M. H., De Tommasi, L., Le Cam, A., Relaño, L. S., Lyons, P., Mundó, J., … & Stancioff, C. E. (2023). A review and mapping exercise of energy community regulatory challenges in European member states based on a survey of collective energy actors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 172 , 113055.

Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos, V., Matarranz, M., Casado-Aranda, L. A., & Otto, A. (2022). Teachers’ digital competencies in higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19 (1), 8.

Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 , 106424.

Burtch, G., & Chan, J. (2019). Investigating the relationship between medical crowdfunding and personal bankruptcy in the United States: Evidence of a digital divide. MIS Quarterly, 43 (1), 237–262.

Cabello-Hutt, T., Cabello, P., & Claro, M. (2018). Online opportunities and risks for children and adolescents: The role of digital skills, age, gender and parental mediation in Brazil. New Media & Society, 20 (7), 2411–2431.

Calderon Gomez, D. (2021). The third digital divide and Bourdieu: Bidirectional conversion of economic, cultural, and social capital to (and from) digital capital among young people in Madrid. New Media & Society, 23 (9), 2534–2553.

Cetindamar Kozanoglu, D., & Abedin, B. (2021). Understanding the role of employees in digital transformation: Conceptualization of digital literacy of employees as a multi-dimensional organizational affordance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34 (6), 1649–1672.

Chan, B. S., Churchill, D., & Chiu, T. K. (2017). Digital literacy learning in higher education through digital storytelling approach. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 13 (1), 1–16.

Chang, S. I., Yen, D. C., Chang, I. C., & Chou, J. C. (2012). Study of the digital divide evaluation model for government agencies–a Taiwanese local government’s perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 14 , 693–709.

Chetty, K., Qigui, L., Gcora, N., Josie, J., Wenwei, L., & Fang, C. (2018). Bridging the digital divide: Measuring digital literacy. Economics, 12 (1), 20180023.

Chiaraviglio, L., Lodovisi, C., Franci, D., Pavoncello, S., Merli, E., Aureli, T., … & Alouini, M. S. (2022). EMF exposure in 5G standalone mm-Wave deployments: What is the impact of downlink traffic?. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 3, 1445–1465.

Chin, A. G., Harris, M. A., & Brookshire, R. (2022). An empirical investigation of intent to adopt mobile payment systems using a trust-based extended valence framework. Information Systems Frontiers , 24 (1), 329–347.

Choudrie, J., Junior, C. O., McKenna, B., & Richter, S. (2018). Understanding and conceptualising the adoption, use and diffusion of mobile banking in older adults: A research agenda and conceptual framework. Journal of Business Research, 88 , 449–465.

Coiro, J. (2021). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 9–31.

Cousin, M. E., & Siegrist, M. (2008). Laypeople’s health concerns and health beliefs in regard to risk perception of mobile communication. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 14 (6), 1235–1249.

Dalampira, E. S., & Nastis, S. A. (2020). Back to the future: Simplifying Sustainable Development Goals based on three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Management and Informatics, 6 (3), 226–240.

Dell’Anna, F. (2021). Green jobs and energy efficiency as strategies for economic growth and the reduction of environmental impacts. Energy Policy, 149 , 112031.

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9–30.

Demortain, D. (2021). La couverture médiatique du problème de la 5G en France . Une analyse quantitative, Rapport de recherche, Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés, LISIS.

Dennehy, D., Fitzgibbon, M., & Carton, F. (2014). International development: Exploring the gap between organisations’ development policy and practice—a Southern perspective. AI & Society, 29 , 221–230.

Dennehy, D., Pappas, I. O., Wamba, S. F., & Michael, K. (2021). Guest editorial. Information Technology & People , 34 (6), 1541–1550.

Département Fédéral de l’Environnement, des Transports, de l’Energie et de la Communication Suisse (DETEC) (2019). Téléphonie mobile et rayonnement. Rapport publié par le groupe de travail Téléphonie mobile et rayonnement sur mandat du DETEC, 18 novembre 2019, https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/fr/dokumente/elektrosmog/fachinfo-daten/bericht-mobilfunk-und-strahlung.pdf.download.pdf/Rapport_TelephonieMobile-Rayonnement.pdf

Deruyck, M., Castellanos, G., Wout, J., Martens, L. Kuehn, S., & Kuster, N. (2021). Final Report of Project CRR-954 Assessment of varied mobile network topologies on human exposure, mobile communication quality and sustainability . Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society.

De Wet, C. (2014). Trends in digital pedagogies: Implications for South African universities expanding through hybrid online education. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences , 5 (23), 859–867.

Dhungel, A., Zmirou-Navier, D., & Van Deventer, E. (2015). Risk management policies and practices regarding radio frequency electromagnetic fields: Results from a WHO survey. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 164 (1–2), 22–27.

Diaz Andrade, A., & Techatassanasoontorn, A. A. (2021). Digital enforcement: Rethinking the pursuit of a digitally-enabled society. Information Systems Journal, 31 (1), 184–197.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147–160.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social Inequality (pp. 355–400). Russell Sage Foundation.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Grover, P., Abbas, R., … & Wade, M. (2022). Climate change and COP26: Are digital technologies and information management part of the problem or the solution? An editorial reflection and call to action. International Journal of Information Management , 63 , 102456.

Elavarasan, R. M., Shafiullah, G. M., Padmanaban, S., Kumar, N. M., Annam, A., Vetrichelvan, A. M., … & Holm-Nielsen, J. B. (2020). A comprehensive review on renewable energy development, challenges, and policies of leading Indian states with an international perspective. Ieee Access , 8 , 74432–74457.

Elena-Bucea, A., Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., & Coelho, P. S. (2021). Assessing the role of age, education, gender and income on the digital divide: Evidence for the European Union. Information Systems Frontiers, 23 , 1007–1021.

Elzanaty, A., Chiaraviglio, L., & Alouini, M. S. (2021). 5G and EMF exposure: Misinformation, open questions, and potential solutions. Frontiers in Communications and Networks, 2 , 635716.

Ertl, B., Csanadi, A., & Tarnai, C. (2020). Getting closer to the digital divide: An analysis of impacts on digital competencies based on the German PIAAC sample. International Journal of Educational Development, 78 , 102259.

Eyman, D. (2020). Digital literac (ies), digital discourses, and communities of practice: literacy practices in virtual environments. In Cultural Practices of Literacy (pp. 181–195). Routledge.

Farias-Gaytan, S., Aguaded, I., & Ramirez-Montoya, M. S. (2023). Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10 (1), 1–11.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (1996). Guidelines for evaluating the environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation. In 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 24 and 97, FCC, editor. 1996: Federal Register .  https://www.fcc.gov/document/guidelines-evaluating-environmental-effects-radiofrequency

Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., & Brecko, B. (Eds.). (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe . Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/52966

Fosso Wamba, S., & Queiroz, M. M. (2023). Responsible artificial intelligence as a secret ingredient for digital health: Bibliometric analysis, insights, and research directions. Information Systems Frontiers, 25 (6), 2123–2138.

Fox, G., & Connolly, R. (2018). Mobile health technology adoption across generations: Narrowing the digital divide. Information Systems Journal, 28 (6), 995–1019.

Franque, F. B., Oliveira, T., & Tam, C. (2023). Continuance intention of mobile payment: TTF model with Trust in an African context. Information Systems Frontiers, 25 (2), 775–793.

Frey, R. (2021). Psychological drivers of individual differences in risk perception: A systematic case study focusing on 5G. Psychological Science, 32 (10), 1592–1604.

Gasmi, F., & Virto, L. R. (2010). The determinants and impact of telecommunications reforms in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 93 (2), 275–286.

Gasmi, F., Ivaldi, M., & Recuero Virto, L. (2009). An empirical analysis of cellular demand in South Africa. In TSE Working Papers 09-091 . School of Economics (TSE).  https://www.tsefr.eu/sites/default/files/medias/doc/wp/dev/wp_dev_91_2009.pdf

Gilster, P., & Glister, P. (1997). Digital literacy (p. 1). New York: Wiley Computer Pub.

Gladkova, A., Vartanova, E., & Ragnedda, M. (2020). Digital divide and digital capital in multiethnic Russian society. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 15 (2), 126–147.

Glaeser, E. L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Do institutions cause growth? Journal of Economic Growth, 9 , 271–303.

Global System for Mobile Communications (GSMA) (2014). Arbitrary radio frequency exposure limits: Impact on 4G network deployment. Case studies: Brussels, Italy, Lithuania, Paris and Poland. London: GSMA publications.

Global System for Mobile Communications (GSMA) (2022). Network and device limits . Public policy. ( https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/emf-and-health/emf-policy ). Accessed 26 Sept 2022.

Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2012). Comparing PLS to regression and LISREL: A response to Marcoulides, Chin, and Saunders. MIS Quarterly , 36( 3), 703–716.

Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Pearson education. ISBN 978-0-273-75356-8.

Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: Toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 5 (4), 499–522.

Hagerman, R. L., & Zmijewski, M. E. (1979). Some economic determinants of accounting policy choice. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1 (2), 141–161.

Harfouche, A. L., Jacobson, D. A., Kainer, D., Romero, J. C., Harfouche, A. H., Mugnozza, G. S., … & Altman, A. (2019). Accelerating climate resilient plant breeding by applying next-generation artificial intelligence. Trends in Biotechnology , 37 (11), 1217–1235.

Harfouche, A., Quinio, B., Saba, M., & Saba, P. B. (2023). The Recursive Theory of Knowledge Augmentation: Integrating human intuition and knowledge in Artificial Intelligence to augment organizational knowledge. Information Systems Frontiers, 25 (1), 55–70.

Heeks, R. (2020a). ICT4D 3.0? Part 1—The components of an emerging “digital-for-development” paradigm. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 86 (3), e12124.

Heeks, R. (2020b). ICT4D 3.0? Part 2—The patterns of an emerging “digital-for-development” paradigm. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 86 (3), e12123.

Henriksen, H. Z., Thapa, D., & Elbanna, A. (2021). Sustainable development goals in IS research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 33 (2), 3.

Hertel, G., Meeßen, S. M., Riehle, D. M., Thielsch, M. T., Nohe, C., & Becker, J. (2019). Directed forgetting in organisations: The positive effects of decision support systems on mental resources and well-being. Ergonomics, 62 (5), 597–611.

Hsieh, J. P. A., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2011). Addressing digital inequality for the socioeconomically disadvantaged through government initiatives: Forms of capital that affect ICT utilization. Information Systems Research, 22 (2), 233–253.

Hu, W. L., Akash, K., Reid, T., & Jain, N. (2018). Computational modeling of the dynamics of human trust during human–machine interactions. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49 (6), 485–497.

Hutter, H. P., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P., & Kundi, M. (2004). Public perception of risk concerning celltowers and mobile phones. Sozial-Und Präventivmedizin, 49 , 62–66.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). (2020). Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Physics, 118 (5), 483–524.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics, 74 (4), 494–522.

International Telecommunications Union (ITU). (2018). The impact of RF-EMF exposure limits stricter than the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines on 4G and 5G mobile network deployment. ITU-T K-series Recommendations - Supplement 14 . International Telecommunication Union.

International Telecommunications Union (ITU). (2019). 5G technology and human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. ITU-T K-series Recommendations - Supplement 9 . International Telecommunication Union.

International Telecommunications Union (ITU). (2021). ITU regional assessment for Europe on EMF exposure limits and risk communication challenges. Executive report . International Telecommunication Union.

Ivanyna, M., & Shah, A. (2012). How close is your government to its people? Worldwide indicators on localization and decentralization . World bank policy research paper 6138.

Janson, M. A. (1991). Linear regression and information systems: An exploratory study. Information & Management, 21 (2), 61–72.

Jayaraju, N., Kumar, M. P., Sreenivasulu, G., Prasad, T. L., Lakshmanna, B., Nagalaksmi, K., & Madakka, M. (2023). Mobile phone and base stations radiation and its effects on human health and environment: A review. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 2 (2), 100031.

Jin, K. Y., Reichert, F., Cagasan, L. P., Jr., de La Torre, J., & Law, N. (2020). Measuring digital literacy across three age cohorts: Exploring test dimensionality and performance differences. Computers & Education, 157 , 103968.

Johnson, M., Albizri, A., & Harfouche, A. (2023). Responsible artificial intelligence in healthcare: Predicting and preventing insurance claim denials for economic and social wellbeing. Information Systems Frontiers, 25 (6), 2179–2195.

Jones-Kavalier, B. R., & Flannigan, S. L. (2008). Connecting the digital dots : Literacy of the 21st century . Teacher librarian-seattle, 35 (3), 13.

Jose, A., Philip, M., Prasanna, L. T., & Manjula, M. (2020). Comparison of probit and logistic regression models in the analysis of dichotomous outcomes. Current Research in Biostatistics, 10 (1), 1–19.

Junaedi, A. T., Renaldo, N., Yovita, I., Veronica, K., & Sudarno, S. (2023). Digital Culture as a Moderating Factor in Increasing Digital Literacy. Reflection: Education and Pedagogical Insights, 1 (3), 116–127.

Kajee, L., & Balfour, R. (2011). Students’ access to digital literacy at a South African university: Privilege and marginalisation. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 29 (2), 187–196.

Kazaure, J. S., & Matthew, U. O. (2021). Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) and Human Health: A Study on the Health Effect of EMR from GSM Base Stations in North-Western Nigeria. American Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 5 (1), 14–24.

Khene, C., & Masiero, S. (2022). From research to action: The practice of decolonizing ICT4D. Information Technology for Development, 28 (3), 443–450.

Kim, J., & Lee, W. (2013). Meanings of criteria and norms: Analyses and comparisons of ICT literacy competencies of middle school students. Computers & Education, 64 , 81–94.

Koh, T. H., Choi, J. W., Seo, M., Choi, H. D., & Kim, K. (2020). Factors affecting risk perception of electromagnetic waves from 5G network base stations. Bioelectromagnetics, 41 (7), 491–499.

Krishna, B., Krishnan, S., & Sebastian, M. P. (2023). Examining the relationship between national cybersecurity commitment, culture, and digital payment usage: An institutional trust theory perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 25 (5), 1713–1741.

Lameijer, C. S., Mueller, B., & Hage, E. (2017). Towards rethinking the digital divide–recognizing shades of grey in older adults’ digital inclusion .

Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U., Alves, F., Pace, P., Mifsud, M., Brandli, L., … & Disterheft, A. (2018). Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: The role of the sustainable development goals (SDG). International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25 (2), 131–142.

Lee, A. S. (2001). What are the best MIS programs in US business schools? MIS Quarterly, 25 (3), III.

Lewicki, F. (2020). ITU-T standardization work on EMF. In 10th international spectrum congress national spectrum agency (ANE) of Colombia, 9th November 2020 . https://www.itu.int/ITU-T/recommendations/rec.aspx?id=14571&lang=en

Lippert, S. K. (2007). Investigating postadoption utilization: An examination into the role of interorganizational and technology trust. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54 (3), 468–483.

Liu, J. (2021). Bridging digital divide amidst educational change for socially inclusive learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. SAGE Open, 11 (4), 21582440211060810.

Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., & El-Kassar, A. N. (2022). The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175 , 121359.

Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5 (4), 249–267.

Masiero, S., & Arvidsson, V. (2021). Degenerative outcomes of digital identity platforms for development. Information Systems Journal, 31 (6), 903–928.

Mazar, H. (2009). An analysis of regulatory frameworks for wireless communications, societal concerns and risk: the case of radio frequency (RF) allocation and licensing . Universal-Publishers.

McFadden, D. (1972). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics (Vol. 1974, pp. 105–142). Academic Press.

Mishra, K. E., Wilder, K., & Mishra, A. K. (2017). Digital literacy in the marketing curriculum: Are female college students prepared for digital jobs?. Industry and Higher Education , 31 (3), 204–211.

Moussaoui, M., Bertin, E., & Crespi, N. (2023). Divide and Conquer: A Business Model Agenda for Beyond-5G and 6G. IEEE Communications Magazine, 61 (7), 82–88.

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2014). Internet adoption by the elderly: Employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 , 708–726.

Nikou, S., De Reuver, M., & Mahboob Kanafi, M. (2022). Workplace literacy skills—how information and digital literacy affect adoption of digital technology. Journal of Documentation, 78 (7), 371–391.

Noreen, E. (1988). An empirical comparison of probit and OLS regression hypothesis tests. Journal of Accounting Research , 26 (1), 119–133.

Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog‐mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 32 (1), 16–30.

Onitsuka, K. (2019). How social media can foster social innovation in disadvantaged rural communities. Sustainability, 11 (9), 2697.

Pappas, I. O., Mikalef, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Jaccheri, L., & Krogstie, J. (2023). Responsible digital transformation for a sustainable society. Information Systems Frontiers, 25 (3), 945–953.

Park, H., Kim, H. S., & Park, H. W. (2021). A scientometric study of digital literacy, ICT literacy, information literacy, and media literacy. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6 (2), 116–138.

Pick, J. B., & Azari, R. (2011). A global model of technological utilization based on governmental, business-investment, social, and economic factors. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28 (1), 49–84.

Pilgrim, J., & Martinez, E. E. (2013). Defining Literacy in the 21st Century: A guide to Terminology and Skills. Texas Journal of Literacy Education , 1 (1), 60–69.

Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Corvino, A., & Venturelli, A. (2020). Management research and the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs): A bibliometric investigation and systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276 , 124033.

Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Nair, M., Hall, J. H., & Bennett, S. E. (2022). Institutional development in an information-driven economy: Can ICTs enhance economic growth for low-and lower middle-income countries? Information Technology for Development, 28 (3), 468–487.

PWC. (2013). Mobile network cost study. Analysis of cost drivers related to the construction, operation and maintenance of mobile networks. Report - Summary for publication . PricewaterhouseCoopers AG.

Quaicoe, J. S., & Pata, K. (2020). Teachers’ digital literacy and digital activity as digital divide components among basic schools in Ghana. Education and Information Technologies, 25 (5), 4077–4095.

Racherla, P., & Mandviwalla, M. (2013). Moving from access to use of the information infrastructure: A multilevel sociotechnical framework. Information Systems Research, 24 (3), 709–730.

Radovanović, D., Holst, C., Belur, S. B., Srivastava, R., Houngbonon, G. V., Le Quentrec, E., … & Noll, J. (2020). Digital literacy key performance indicators for sustainable development. Social Inclusion, 8 (2), 151–167.

Ramirez-Vazquez, R., Gonzalez-Rubio, J., Arribas, E., & Najera, A. (2019). Characterisation of personal exposure to environmental radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in Albacete (Spain) and assessment of risk perception. Environmental Research, 172 , 109–116.

Ramirez, J. (2021). Governance in energy democracy for Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and opportunities for partnerships at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Journal of International Business Policy, 4 (1), 119–135.

Reddy, P., Sharma, B., & Chaudhary, K. (2020). Digital literacy: A review of literature. International Journal of Technoethics  (IJT), 11 (2), 65–94.

Reisdorf, B. C., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). Digital rehabilitation: A model of reentry into the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist, 62 (9), 1273–1290.

Rinekso, A. B., Rodliyah, R. S., & Pertiwi, I. (2021). Digital literacy practices in tertiary education: A case of EFL postgraduate students. Studies in English Language and Education, 8 (2), 622–641.

Rosabal, O. M., López, O. L. A., Alves, H., & Latva-Aho, M. (2023). Sustainable RF Wireless Energy Transfer for Massive IoT: Enablers and Challenges. IEEE Access, 11 , 133979–133992.

Roth, W. M. (2014). Activity Theory. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer.

Russell, C. L. (2018). 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research, 165 , 484–495.

Saba, P., Meissonier, R., & Harfouche, A. (2024). Different IT projects, but the same conflicts. action research during IT deployment. Information Systems Frontiers , 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10467-6

Saba, P. B., & Meissonier, R. (2020). Fighting fire with fire: Action research on the inoculation technique to limit the resistances related to an IT project. Systèmes d’Information et Management (French Journal of Management Information Systems), 25 (3), 87–126.

Saba, M., Bou Saba, P., & Harfouche, A. (2018). Hidden facets of IT projects are revealed only after deployment: The case of French agricultural cooperatives. Information Technology & People, 31 (1), 239–255.

Scott, W. R. (2017). Institutional theory: Onward and upward. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 900 , 853–871.

Seo, M. S., Choi, J. W., Kim, K. H., & Choi, H. D. (2020). The relationship between risk perception of cell phones and objective knowledge of EMF in Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (19), 7207.

Siegrist, M., Earle, T. C., Gutscher, H., & Keller, C. (2005). Perception of mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 25 (5), 1253–1264.

Smidt, H. J., & Jokonya, O. (2022). Factors affecting digital technology adoption by small-scale farmers in agriculture value chains (AVCs) in South Africa. Information Technology for Development, 28 (3), 558–584.

Stone, M., & Rasp, J. (1991). Tradeoffs in the choice between logit and OLS for accounting choice studies. Accounting Review , 66 (1), 170–187.

Talukdar, D., & Gauri, D. K. (2011). Home Internet access and usage in the USA: Trends in the socio-economic digital divide. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28 (1), 7.

Tjoa, A. M., & Tjoa, S. (2016). The role of ICT to achieve the UN sustainable development goals (SDG). In F. J. Mata & A. Pont (Eds.), ICT for promoting human development and protecting the environment. 6th IFIP world information technology forum, WITFOR 2016, San José, Costa Rica, September 12-14, 2016, Proceedings (pp. 3–13). Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44447-5_1

Tsvetkova, M., Ushatikova, I., Antonova, N., Salimova, S., & Degtyarevskaya, T. (2021). The Use of Social Media for the Development of Digital Literacy of Students: From Adequate Use to Cognition Tools. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16 (2), 65–78.

Turel, O., & Gefen, D. (2013). The dual role of trust in system use. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54 (1), 2–10.

Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34 (4–5), 221–235.

Vassilakopoulou, P., & Hustad, E. (2023). Bridging digital divides: A literature review and research agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Frontiers, 25 (3), 955–969.

Venkatesh, V., & Sykes, T. A. (2013). Digital divide initiative success in developing countries: A longitudinal field study in a village in India. Information Systems Research, 24 (2), 239–260.

Voigt, S., & Blume, L. (2012). The economic effects of federalism and decentralization—a cross-country assessment. Public Choice, 151 , 229–254.

Wali, S. Q., Sali, A., Allami, J. K., & Osman, A. F. (2022). RF-EMF exposure measurement for 5G over mm-wave base station with MIMO antenna. IEEE Access, 10 , 9048–9058.

Wei, K. K., Teo, H. H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. (2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22 (1), 170–187.

Wiedemann, P. M., & Schütz, H. (2005). The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (4), 402–405.

Wooldridge, J. (2012). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach . South-Western Cengage Learning.

Wu, J., Guo, S., Huang, H., Liu, W., & Xiang, Y. (2018). Information and communications technologies for sustainable development goals: State-of-the-art, needs and perspectives. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 20 (3), 2389–2406.

Yang, M., Jiang, J., Kiang, M., & Yuan, F. (2022). Re-examining the impact of multidimensional trust on patients’ online medical consultation service continuance decision. Information Systems Frontiers , 24 (3), 983–1007.

Zhang, D., Mohsin, M., Rasheed, A. K., Chang, Y., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2021). Public spending and green economic growth in BRI region: Mediating role of green finance. Energy Policy, 153 , 112256.

Zhao, F., Collier, A., & Deng, H. (2014). A multidimensional and integrative approach to study global digital divide and e-government development. Information Technology & People, 27 (1), 38–62.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the Investments for the Future (Investissements d'Avenir) program (grant ANR-17-EURE-0010). Their generous funding allowed us to conduct and complete our study. The views expressed are only those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions with which they are affiliated.

We acknowledge funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the Investments for the Future (Investissements d'Avenir) program (grant ANR-17-EURE-0010).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Toulouse School of Economics, Université Toulouse Capitole, Toulouse, France

Farid Gasmi

The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA

Paul Noumba Um

Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Research Center, 92916, Paris La Défense, France, France

Laura Recuero Virto & Peter Saba

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All four authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: Study conception and design: Authors A, B, C, D. Literature review and theoretical design: Authors A, B, C, D. Data collection: Authors A, B, and C. Analysis and interpretation of results: Authors A, B, C, and D. Draft manuscript preparation: Authors A, B, C, and D. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Saba .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1.1 Data description, sources, and descriptive statistics

1.1.1 sample of countries.

The dataset constructed for this paper contains observations of a sample of 97 countries worldwide that apply the international mobile station exposure limits (ICNIRP, 1998 or ICNIRP, 2020 ) or the US national mobile network limits (FCC, 1996 ), and another sample of 27 countries worldwide that apply restrictive mobile station exposure limits, for which there is sufficient data on the determinants of interest (see Table  1 in the main text). Table 6 below lists the 124 countries selected for the paper according to the type of EMF legislation (standard exposure limits, restrictive exposure limits) and following the World Bank regional classification. These data are based on the authors’ elaborations building on ITU ( 2021 ) surveys, GSMA ( 2022 ), and Chiaraviglio et al. ( 2022 ) datasets. Table 7 below lists the 59 countries which have 5G amongst those countries in the whole dataset in Table 6 . Within this 5G dataset, there were 45 countries with standard exposure limits and 14 countries with restrictive exposure limits.

Tables 6 and 7

Data content and sources

For the proxies of the determinants of EMF legislation, data were collected according to the main hypothesis considered in this paper, namely, digital literacy (see Table  1 in the main text), and some control variables regrouped under the label others (controls) and some instruments were added. Table 8 below gives the data content and the sources.

Table 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17

Summary statistics

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gasmi, F., Um, P.N., Virto, L.R. et al. Digital Literacy, Sustainable Development and Radiation Regulation: Policy and Information Systems Implications. Inf Syst Front (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10488-9

Download citation

Accepted : 09 April 2024

Published : 06 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10488-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable Development
• Digital Literacy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research