Swedish teacher education institutions (TEIs) are situated in a postdigital society increasingly infused with generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools (Örtegren, 2026). However, as Laba (2025) argues, GAI is not a neutral digital tool; rather it has the potential to reshape educational practices, professional responsibilities, and societal expectations in non-neutral ways. For young people to participate in an AI-infused society, they need to develop critical digital competence (Örtegren & Olofsson, 2024). In relation to young peoples’ development of digital competence, TEIs carry a dual responsibility: first, to educate student teachers who can engage with GAI in critical and pedagogical informed ways and second, them being able to create the educational conditions that enable pupils to develop this critical digital competence (Lindfors & Olofsson, 2023). For this dual responsibility to be realised, appropriate organisational conditions that support continuous professional development (CPD) in professional digital competence (PDC) are required, with institutional leaders within Swedish TEIs playing a central role in establishing these conditions. This is necessary so to ensure that teacher educators’ (TEDs’) levels of PDC enable them to fulfil this dual didactic task (Uerz et al., 2018). At the same time, political rhetoric in Sweden calls for a reduction in the use of digital technologies, such as GAI, in schools, while the proposed new steering document for Swedish teacher education (SOU 2024:81) gives only limited attention to GAI. Consequently, TEI institutional leaders face a delicate challenge in balancing these policy signals with the need to secure CPD in PDC and thereby maintaining teacher education that reflects and responds to contemporary society.

PDC captures an integrated view of the teaching profession that encompasses subject content, pedagogy, and digital technology (Starkey, 2020). PDC is neither a single, fixed, nor static competence; rather it is a multi-dimensional and evolving competence required to engage with the ‘not-yetness’ (Ross, 2017) of emerging technologies, such as GAI, in educational practice (Skantz-Åberg et al., 2022; Willermark et al., 2024). Of particular relevance to this study is that, despite a growing body of research on PDC in teacher education, considerably little is known about how institutional leaders understand, prioritise, and organise the conditions for CPD in PDC among TEDs (Maaranen et al., 2023). Against this background, the aim of this national qualitative study is to explore how institutional leaders across all 20 Swedish TEIs offering programmes for grades 4-6 discuss the conditions that support TEDs’ development of PDC.

The paper analyses how institutional leaders conceptualise PDC, how they describe CPD, and how organisational conditions enable or constrain sustained development over time. Rather than treating CPD and PDC as separate phenomena, the analysis foregrounds their interrelationship. Preliminary findings reveal recurring patterns across institutions. First, leaders consistently emphasise PDC as a core professional competence for TEDs, closely linked to democratic responsibility and the capacity to navigate rapid development in AI. PDC is talked about as essential for fulfilling the dual didactic task of TE. Second, leaders describe substantial variation in PDC among TEDs, which they primarily attribute to uneven organisational conditions, such as access to time, resources, structured CPD, and collegial support, rather than individual motivation. Although CPD is widely recognised as important to address this variation, it is often characterised as fragmented, reactive, and dependent on short-term initiatives rather than embedded in long-term strategies. Third, the findings point to a tension between centralised CPD initiatives and local educational practice, as leaders report  difficulties in integrating generic workshops and support structures into sustained, programme-embedded CPD. Overall, leaders express a growing concern that current CPD approaches are insufficient to support the level of PDC required in an increasingly AI-infused educational landscape.

This study forms part of the research project The Search for Professional Digital Competence in Swedish Teacher Education (2025–2028), funded by the Swedish Research Council. The overarching project aims to contribute new empirical knowledge on PDC in Swedish TEIs and to generate evidence-based recommendations for institutional development. While the broader project includes studies at multiple levels of TEIs, the present study specifically examines institutional leaders’ perspectives on organisational conditions, responsibility, and steering related to the development of TEDs’ PDC, including GAI. An interpretive qualitative approach was adopted, designed as a national interview-based census (Bryman, 2016). The study includes the full population of Swedish TEIs offering programmes leading to a Master of Arts in Primary Education for school years 4–6 (N = 20), comprising 12 universities and eight university colleges. By including all eligible institutions, the design enables analysis of shared national conditions as well as variation across institutional contexts. Participants were institutional leaders identified through the national Teacher Education Convent. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams between May and August 2025, following the principles outlined by Kvale and Brinkmann (2018). Two interviews included two respondents, resulting in a total of 22 participants. Interviews lasted between 38 and 62 minutes and addressed leadership responsibilities, the societal role of teacher education, prerequisites for PDC, and future developments including GAI. The present analysis focuses on interview material related to prerequisites and organisational conditions for PDC development. In most interviews, two researchers were present, allowing for enhanced reflexivity, intersubjectivity, and analytical depth (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). The researchers’ insider position within higher education facilitated access and rapport, while also requiring ongoing reflexivity regarding positionality and power relations (Berger, 2015; Mercer, 2007). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and validated by participants. A joint process of analysis by the three researchers in the project followed an iterative, multi-stage process, combining meaning condensation (Kvale & Brinkman, 2016) with thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019). To support analytical transparency and systematic comparison across cases, generative AI tools (ChatGPT and NotebookLM) were used as supplementary analytical aids in the development of narrative summaries and thematic structuring. The study was reviewed by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2025-01359-01), which found that no formal ethical approval was required. The study was conducted in accordance with principles of relational ethics and care (Weurlander, 2024).

This study highlights a central paradox in the development of PDC within Swedish TEIs. While institutional leaders consistently emphasise the importance of PDC in an increasingly digitalised educational landscape, the organisational conditions required to support its sustained development remain uneven and fragile. Across both universities and university colleges, PDC is understood as a core competence for TEDs, closely linked to ethical judgement, democratic responsibility, and the dual didactic task of teaching both with and about digital technologies. CPD is recognised as essential for developing this competence and is described as a long-term, ongoing endeavour rather than a series of isolated training events. However, leaders’ accounts reveal a persistent gap between this shared understanding of CPD and its organisational realisation, particularly in terms of coherence, sustainability, and embeddedness in everyday practice. CPD primarily appears as a constraining organisational condition. CPD is often described as reactive, typically initiated in response to external pressures, such as the rapid emergence of GAI and related policy and public debates, rather than embedded in long-term strategic planning. Responsibility for CPD is commonly diffused across organisational levels, resulting in a reliance on individual enthusiasts and short-term initiatives, rather than sustainable, collective structures for professional learning. Leaders also highlight substantial variation in PDC among TEDs, which is perceived as increasingly problematic considering student teachers’ diverse digital competencies. This variation is framed as a consequence of unequal organisational access to time, resources, support, and structured opportunities for CPD. Notably, these challenges cut across institutions. Differences between universities and university colleges appear less significant as compared to shared national constraints related to governance, resource allocation, and system inertia. The central challenge is not whether PDC matters, but whether existing organisational and governance structures can sustain the CPD necessary for PDC to become a lived dimension of TEDs’ professional practice.

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2018). Doing interviews (2nd ed.). Sage. Laba, N. (2025). AI is not a tool. AI & Society, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02784-y Lindfors, M., & Olofsson, A.D. (2023). The search for professional digital competence in Swedish teacher education policy—A content analysis of the prerequisites for teacher educators’ dual didactic task. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2272994. Maaranen, K., Stenberg, K., Sintonen, S., Kynäslahti, H., Jyrhämä, R., & Byman, R. (2023). University faculty leaders’ views of teacher educators’ professional development. Journal of Education for Teaching, 49(1), 21-36. Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 1–17. Swedish Research Council. (2024). Good research practice. Swedish Research Council. Ross, J. (2017) Speculative method in digital education research. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 214-229. Skantz-Åberg, E., Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M., & Williams, P. (2022). Teachers’ professional digital competence: an overview of conceptualisations in the literature. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2063224. Starkey, L. (2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37-56. Uerz, D., Volman, M., & Kral, M. (2018). Teacher educators' competences in fostering student teachers’ proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview of relevant research literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 12–23. Weurlander, M. (2024). Relational ethics and care in higher education research. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(2), 345–357.