How Higher Education Institutions Are Driving to Digital Transformation: A Case Study

Comment

revision

Define the contribution of the qualitative study to the quantitative study and justify the choice of the two.

After informing the approaches to be used, we mention our reasons for using a mixed approach.

Justify the proportion of each type of interviewees ("4 were HEI professionals, 4 employers, and 2 alumni").

In the article, we mention that we invited 12 people. with 4 interviewees per profile. However, it was only possible to conduct 10 interviews. We understood that it was not important to interview two more from the alumni profile because a questionnaire was launched to the alumni after the interviews.

At the interview stage, clarify the connection of the employers interviewed to the Polytechnic Institute of Porto. Characterize the interviewees. For example, what is the academic degree of alumni.

It was introduced a table with the profile of the interviewees.

Present the scales used.

In the paper, we wrote see scales in [49, p. 120]

Characterize the sample used in the quantitative study.

It was introduced a table with the profile of the respondents.

The weakest point of the article is the lack of presentation and analysis of the results obtained in the qualitative and quantitative study. The discussion of results must exist but be supported in the presentation of the results. In the presentation of the results, in addition to text, it is expected to have tables and graphs.

Some extracts from the empirical data and results of the questionnaires were introduced in the paper.

The conclusion should also be revised as it introduces elements that should be in the results presentation section. For instance: “The tools most referred to throughout the interviews were Moodle, Zoom and Teams, and software in the management area, such as SAP”.

The conclusion was reformulated.

Response to review

Comment

revision

    Digital transformation is a core part of the paper. I think this should somehow be reflected in the title of the paper.

Done

    The heading “Theoretical Background” is not an accurate description of what the text inside contains. I think that sections 2.2 and 2.3 should remain inside here, with the overall section called “Literature Review”. I think that section 2.1 should become a new section entitled “Research site” or “Research context”, and it should come after the literature review.

Done

    In the literature review sections, and especially in the section on the role of higher education in digital transformation, I think we need to read more about what is ‘missing’ from the current literature. In short, I think that the authors should work to establish that what is missing are the issues that the research sub-questions focus on—since that helps justify why those questions have been chosen.

Done

In section 2. we introduced 7 paragraphs (2 1 one paragraph, 2.1 Five paragraphs

2.2 One paragraph)

    In turn, when stating the research questions, the reasons for choosing the sub-questions should be stated. The easiest way to do this will be to have discussed this issue before in the literature review.

The paragraph was amended.

    Having the research questions and research objectives so close together makes the paper look repetitive. My advice would be to move the ‘objectives’ much earlier: towards the very start of the paper.

The paragraphs were amended.

    When discussing the data collection, the authors need to spend more time (a) describing and (b) justifying who the participants are. For the interviews, you can justify much more in detail what different kinds of expertise and experiences the different kinds of participants would have had. It is *crucial* to discuss this if you are to be able to say that you are addressing your RQs. For the questionnaires, we need to know what kind of insights you think “former students” can provide and where they might have gaps in their knowledge.

 Regarding the questionnaires and interviews, 2 tables were introduced with the profile of the respondents.

    I think the section “Discussion of Results” should be renamed simply “Results”.

The section names have been changed.

    Within each sub-section 5.1 and 5.2, I think we need more examples of the data that illustrates each of your findings. For example, in section 5.1, you emphasise issues like customer contact, process optimisation, information collection, and so on. I think each of these needs to become a dedicated paragraph. What does each term mean, and why did participants think it was important? Where possible, provide a block quotation from an interview or some extract from a questionnaire to illustrate the point.

Some extracts from the empirical data were introduced in the paper and the results of the questionnaires.

    I’m not sure why you are presenting the analysis of the interviews and questionnaires separately. I think you should either (a) justify that in the text or (b) present the analysis of the two sources of data in an integrated way.

Subtitles (interviews and questionnaires) have been removed, and a brief explanation has been introduced at the beginning of the section.

    I think that section 6 could become “Discussion and Conclusions”, with 5.3 incorporated in there too.

Item 5.3 is also part of the analysis of the data obtained from the interviews and questionnaires. It is a code/construct used for content analysis/qualitative data, so we chose to keep it in section 4 Results.

Review 3

Comment

revision

When a table takes you more than one page, the table header should appear on each page.

Done

And the references in the ‘References’ section must follow the model set by the journal. You must correct the errors that exist.

Done

Comment

revision

Define the contribution of the qualitative study to the quantitative study and justify the choice of the two.

After informing the approaches to be used, we mention our reasons for using a mixed approach.

Justify the proportion of each type of interviewees ("4 were HEI professionals, 4 employers, and 2 alumni").

In the article, we mention that we invited 12 people. with 4 interviewees per profile. However, it was only possible to conduct 10 interviews. We understood that it was not important to interview two more from the alumni profile because a questionnaire was launched to the alumni after the interviews.

At the interview stage, clarify the connection of the employers interviewed to the Polytechnic Institute of Porto. Characterize the interviewees. For example, what is the academic degree of alumni.

it was introduced a table with the profile of the interviewees.

Present the scales used.

In the paper, we wrote see scales in [49, p. 120]

Characterize the sample used in the quantitative study.

It was introduced a table with the profile of the respondents.

The weakest point of the article is the lack of presentation and analysis of the results obtained in the qualitative and quantitative study. The discussion of results must exist but be supported in the presentation of the results. In the presentation of the results in addition to text, it is expected to have tables and graphs.

Some extracts from the empirical data and results of the questionnaires were introduced in the paper.

The conclusion should also be revised as it introduces elements that should be in the results presentation section. For instance: “The tools most referred to throughout the interviews were Moodle, Zoom and Teams, and software in the management area, such as SAP”.

The conclusion was reformulated.

Comment

revision

    Digital transformation is a core part of the paper. I think this should somehow be reflected in the title of the paper.

Done

    The heading “Theoretical Background” is not an accurate description of what the text inside contains. I think that sections 2.2 and 2.3 should remain inside here, with the overall section called “Literature Review”. I think that section 2.1 should become a new section entitled “Research site” or “Research context” and it should come after the literature review.

Done

    In the literature review sections, and especially in the section on the role of higher education in digital transformation, I think we need to read more about what is ‘missing’ from the current literature. In short, I think that the authors should work to establish that what is missing are the issues that the research sub-questions focus on—since that helps justify why those questions have been chosen.

Done

In section 2. we introduced 7 paragraphs (2 1 one paragraph, 2.1 Five paragraphs

2.2 One paragraph)

    In turn, when stating the research questions, the reasons for choosing the sub-questions should be stated. The easiest way to do this will be to have discussed this issue before, in the literature review.

The paragraph was amended.

    Having the research questions and research objectives so close together makes the paper look repetitive. My advice would be to move the ‘objectives’ much earlier: towards the very start of the paper.

The paragraphs were amended.

    When discussing the data collection, the authors need to spend more time (a) describing and (b) justifying who the participants are. For the interviews, you can justify much more in detail what different kinds of expertise and experiences the different kinds of participants would have had. It is *crucial* to discuss this if you are to be able to say that you are addressing your RQs. For the questionnaires, we need to know what kind of insights you think “former students” can provide and where they might have gaps in their knowledge.

 Regarding the questionnaires and interviews, 2 tables were introduced with the profile of the respondents.

    I think the section “Discussion of Results” should be renamed simply “Results”.

The section names have been changed.

    Within each sub-section 5.1 and 5.2 I think we need more examples of the data that illustrates each of your findings. For example, in section 5.1 you emphasise issues like customer contact, process optimisation, information collection, and so on. I think each of these needs to become a dedicated paragraph. What does each term mean and why did participants think it was important? Where possible, provide a block quotation from an interview or some extract from a questionnaire to illustrate the point.

Some extracts from the empirical data were introduced in the paper and the results of the questionnaires.

    I’m not sure why you are presenting the analysis of the interviews and questionnaires separately. I think you should either (a) justify that in the text or (b) present the analysis of the two sources of data in an integrated way.

Subtitles (interviews and questionnaires) have been removed, and a brief explanation has been introduced at the beginning of the section.

    I think that section 6 could become “Discussion and Conclusions”, with 5.3 incorporated in there too.

Item 5.3 is also part of the analysis of the data obtained from the interviews and questionnaires. It is a code/construct used for content analysis/qualitative data, so we chose to keep it in section 4 Results.

Comment

revision

When a table takes you more than one page, the table header should appear on each page.

Done

And the references in the ‘References’ section must follow the model set by the journal. You must correct the errors that exist.

Done

Comment

revision

Define the contribution of the qualitative study to the quantitative study and justify the choice of the two.

After informing the approaches to be used, we mention our reasons for using a mixed approach.

Justify the proportion of each type of interviewees ("4 were HEI professionals, 4 employers, and 2 alumni").

In the article, we mention that we invited 12 people. with 4 interviewees per profile. However, it was only possible to conduct 10 interviews. We understood that it was not important to interview two more from the alumni profile because a questionnaire was launched to the alumni after the interviews.

At the interview stage, clarify the connection of the employers interviewed to the Polytechnic Institute of Porto. Characterize the interviewees. For example, what is the academic degree of alumni.

it was introduced a table with the profile of the interviewees.

Present the scales used.

In the paper, we wrote see scales in [49, p. 120]

Characterize the sample used in the quantitative study.

It was introduced a table with the profile of the respondents.

The weakest point of the article is the lack of presentation and analysis of the results obtained in the qualitative and quantitative study. The discussion of results must exist but be supported in the presentation of the results. In the presentation of the results in addition to text, it is expected to have tables and graphs.

Some extracts from the empirical data and results of the questionnaires were introduced in the paper.

The conclusion should also be revised as it introduces elements that should be in the results presentation section. For instance: “The tools most referred to throughout the interviews were Moodle, Zoom and Teams, and software in the management area, such as SAP”.

The conclusion was reformulated.

Comment

revision

    Digital transformation is a core part of the paper. I think this should somehow be reflected in the title of the paper.

Done

    The heading “Theoretical Background” is not an accurate description of what the text inside contains. I think that sections 2.2 and 2.3 should remain inside here, with the overall section called “Literature Review”. I think that section 2.1 should become a new section entitled “Research site” or “Research context” and it should come after the literature review.

Done

    In the literature review sections, and especially in the section on the role of higher education in digital transformation, I think we need to read more about what is ‘missing’ from the current literature. In short, I think that the authors should work to establish that what is missing are the issues that the research sub-questions focus on—since that helps justify why those questions have been chosen.

Done

In section 2. we introduced 7 paragraphs (2 1 one paragraph, 2.1 Five paragraphs

2.2 One paragraph)

    In turn, when stating the research questions, the reasons for choosing the sub-questions should be stated. The easiest way to do this will be to have discussed this issue before, in the literature review.

The paragraph was amended.

    Having the research questions and research objectives so close together makes the paper look repetitive. My advice would be to move the ‘objectives’ much earlier: towards the very start of the paper.

The paragraphs were amended.

    When discussing the data collection, the authors need to spend more time (a) describing and (b) justifying who the participants are. For the interviews, you can justify much more in detail what different kinds of expertise and experiences the different kinds of participants would have had. It is *crucial* to discuss this if you are to be able to say that you are addressing your RQs. For the questionnaires, we need to know what kind of insights you think “former students” can provide and where they might have gaps in their knowledge.

 Regarding the questionnaires and interviews, 2 tables were introduced with the profile of the respondents.

    I think the section “Discussion of Results” should be renamed simply “Results”.

The section names have been changed.

    Within each sub-section 5.1 and 5.2 I think we need more examples of the data that illustrates each of your findings. For example, in section 5.1 you emphasise issues like customer contact, process optimisation, information collection, and so on. I think each of these needs to become a dedicated paragraph. What does each term mean and why did participants think it was important? Where possible, provide a block quotation from an interview or some extract from a questionnaire to illustrate the point.

Some extracts from the empirical data were introduced in the paper and the results of the questionnaires.

    I’m not sure why you are presenting the analysis of the interviews and questionnaires separately. I think you should either (a) justify that in the text or (b) present the analysis of the two sources of data in an integrated way.

Subtitles (interviews and questionnaire) have been removed, and a brief explanation has been introduced at the beginning of the section.

    I think that section 6 could become “Discussion and Conclusions”, with 5.3 incorporated in there too.

Item 5.3 is also part of the analysis of the data obtained from the interviews and questionnaires. It is a code/construct used for content analysis/qualitative data, so we chose to keep it in section 4 Results.

Comment

revision

When a table takes you more than one page, the table header should appear on each page.

Done

And the references in the ‘References’ section must follow the model set by the journal. You must correct the errors that exist.

Done