Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41749974›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

School Principals' Perspectives and Leadership Styles for Digital Transformation: A Q-Methodology Study.

Peili Yuan, Xinshen Chen, Huan Song

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Peili YuanCenter for Teacher Education Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.
Xinshen ChenCenter for Teacher Education Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.
Huan SongCenter for Teacher Education Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6053-6972

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 72574028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advent of generative AI (GenAI) and its growing use in education has sparked a renewed wave of school digital transformation. School principals are pivotal in advancing and shaping school digital transformation, yet little is known about how they understand and lead digital transformation in the age of GenAI, particularly within China's complex educational system. This study employed Q methodology to identify the perceptions and leadership styles of Chinese K-12 school principals toward school digital transformation in the age of GenAI. An analysis of a 30-item Q set with a P sample of 23 principals revealed four leadership types: Cautious Observation-Technological Gatekeeping Leadership, Moderate Ambition-Culturally Transformative Leadership, Moderate Ambition-Emotionally Empowering Leadership, and High Aspiration-Strategy-Driven Leadership. Overall, principals' stances on GenAI formed a continuum, ranging from cautious observation and skeptical optimism to active embrace. These perceptions and leadership styles were shaped by Confucian cultural values, a flexible central-local governance arrangement, and parents' high expectations for students' academic achievement. Furthermore, structural constraints in resource provision further heightened principals' reliance on maintaining guanxi-based relationships. This study enhances the understanding of the diversity of principals' leadership practices worldwide and offers actionable insights for governments and principals to more effectively advance AI-enabled school digital transformation.

Indexed as

ChinaGenAIprincipal leadershipQ methodologyschool digital transformation

Identifiers

PMID41749974
PMCPMC12938079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.