The digital transformation of educational systems has opened up multiple new ways of organizing and steering higher education institutions. There exists a strong belief in educational policies and practices that technology-mediated teaching and learning approaches have great potential. The concept of e-learning is a construct which covers a range of learning methods, processes, and academics (Hubalovsky, Hubalovska, & Musilek, 2019). Based on a systematic review Rodrigues, Almeida, Figueiredo, and Lopes (2019, p. 95) proposed a definition of e-learning: “E-learning is an innovative web-based system based on digital technologies and other forms of educational materials whose primary goal is to provide students with personalized, learner-centered, open, enjoyable and interactive learning environment supporting and enhancing the learning process.” Hence, studies of e-learning opens up for approaching multiple types of actors, educational perspectives and teaching and learning approaches simultaneously.  In another systematic review of trends in educational research about e-learning, Valverde-Berrocoso, Garrido-Arroyo, Burgos-Videla, and Morales-Cevallos (2020) identified three main research strands, focusing on online students (self-regulation, retention, dropout), online teachers (professional development, teacher education) and curriculum-interactive learning environments (impacts and success). MOOCS was the most researched e-learning modality. When the COVID-19 pandemic caused the closing of lecture halls all over the world, various approaches to e-learning increasingly replaced face-to-face academic practices. The situation showed the strength and weaknesses of educational systems facing the challenges of digitalization (Valverde-Berrocoso et al., 2020, p. 1). A substantial amount of studies was carried out in a relatively short time the first year of the pandemic on e-learning (see e.g. Almaiah, Al-Khasawneh, & Althunibat, 2020; Bryson & Andres, 2020; Mseleku, 2020).

This rapid change in teaching and learning environment influences e.g. the act of teaching, the adaptability of, and collaboration amongst faculty, curriculum content, students’ life and learning, societal expectations of universities and graduates etc.  Hence, the digital transformation in higher education requires significant expertise and understanding of how to effectively manage such changing organizational environment. An understanding of how higher education organizations operate in such a context of new and continuing tensions and challenges is essential for effective leadership (Manning, 2017, p. 3). The objective of this scoping review is to examine how published, peer review studies have addressed the relationship between the growth of e-learning and organizational change in higher education institutions in the period 2010-2021. We are exploring key characteristics, focal themes, empirical phenomena and theoretical perspectives in studies identified by a Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

The complexity in conceptions of higher education as organizations reflects the existence of manifold types of institutions, multiple environmental pressures, several and simultaneously occurring organizational structures and numerous professional identities of its members (Manning, 2017). Studying the complexity of organizational change in higher education can only be approached by using a combination of theoretical perspectives. Manning (2017) suggests an interdisciplinary approach covering views on organizations and organizational change from the notion of organized anarchy, a collegium, political interests, cultural aspects, bureaucracy, deliberate leadership, power struggles to organizational change as a cooperative and collaborative journey. In this article, we will use Manning’s approach as a conceptual tool for discussing the findings of our thematic analysis. In line with the objective of this study, we argue that when studying the relationship between the growth of e-learning and organizational change, a combination of theoretical perspectives for discussing the results is required.

Our review is conducted following the Prisma Protocol for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). The inclusion-exclusion criteria established are peer-review journal articles in English in the period of 2010-2021. A preliminary search string has been developed: e-learning OR "online learning" OR "web-based learning" OR "distant learning" OR "remote learning" OR "blended learning" OR "flipped classroom" OR MOOC AND "higher education" OR college OR university OR "post-secondary" OR postsecondary AND (Organization* AND change*) OR (Organization* AND transformation*) OR (Organization* AND transition*) OR (Institution* AND change*) OR (Institution* AND transformation*) OR (Institution* AND transition*), and trial searches will soon be conducted. The selection criteria include theoretical and empirical studies with qualitative and/or quantitative methods. The selected databases are Academic Search Premier, ERIC, Education Source, Scopus. The main argument for selecting the four bases are that these are the largest databases covering educational research in general including research on higher education. Scopus and Academic Search Premier additionally covers most disciplines and research fields. However, we will keep in mind that these databases might have a bias towards UK and US based studies. Finally, we will conduct trial searches in ACM digital library and IEEE explore (I triple E) since this are two large search engines focusing on technology and technological changes. In the first phase, the inclusion - exclusion criteria were applied to the titles, abstracts, and keywords. In the second phase, the inclusion criteria were applied to the full text. The authors acted as two independent groups of reviewers in the two phases, and in the collaboration and research tool Rayyan () are used by the authors for quality assurance in the selection process. The final selection of articles will be analyzed using a thematic analysis systematically identifying patterns or themes (Braun & Clarke, 2019; Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). More specifically we are focusing on key characteristics such as e.g. research themes and sub-themes, empirical phenomenon, methodologies, theoretical perspectives and main findings to identify the type of available, clarify key concepts and identify potential knowledge gaps (Munn et al., 2018).

Universities are known to be “loosely coupled” organizations, consequently, it might be challenging to identify overall and sustainable approaches to organizational change when it comes to digitalization processes in higher education. However, this review will complement existing research which has students, lectures, curriculum and learning environments as the unit of analysis. A basic assumption is that these three “levels” of higher education organizations’ practices are shaped by their organizational contexts. This paper will illuminate how such dynamics are put into play.

Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5261-5280. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597. Bryson, J. R., & Andres, L. (2020). Covid-19 and rapid adoption and improvisation of online teaching: curating resources for extensive versus intensive online learning experiences. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 44(4), 608-623. doi:10.1080/03098265.2020.1807478 Hubalovsky, S., Hubalovska, M., & Musilek, M. (2019). Assessment of the influence of adaptive E-learning on learning effectiveness of primary school pupils. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 691-705. Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 9(3). Manning, K. (2017). Organizational theory in higher education: Routledge. Mseleku, Z. (2020). A literature review of E-learning and E-teaching in the era of Covid-19 pandemic. SAGE, 57(52), 588-597. Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 1-7. Rodrigues, H., Almeida, F., Figueiredo, V., & Lopes, S. L. (2019). Tracking e-learning through published papers: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 136, 87-98. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., . . . Weeks, L. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7), 467-473. Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Garrido-Arroyo, M. d. C., Burgos-Videla, C., & Morales-Cevallos, M. B. (2020). Trends in educational research about e-learning: A systematic literature review (2009–2018). Sustainability, 12(12), 5153.