[
1. Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition. Louisville: EDUCAUSE.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
2. Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29-40.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
3. Beetham, H. (2004). The E-Learning and Pedagogy Programme: First Consultation Responses.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
4. de Boer, H., File, J., Huisman, J., Seeber, M., Vukasovic, M., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2016). Policy analysis of structural reforms in higher education: Processes and outcomes. Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
5. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-1710.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
6. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.10.3102/0013189X032001005
]Search in Google Scholar
[
7. Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: from the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 583-598.10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00190.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
8. European Commission (2019). Future & Emerging Technologies (FET) – Digital Single Market – European Commission. Retrieved 17 October 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/future-emerging-technologies-fet
]Search in Google Scholar
[
9. Ferguson, R., Coughlan, T., Egelandsdal, K., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., Jones, D., Jowers, I., Kukulska-Hulme, A., McAndrew, P., Misiejuk, K., Ness, I. J., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Wasson, B., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. (2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
10. Jackson, M. B. (2013). Conceptual analysis and epistemic progress. Synthese, 190(15), 3053-3074.10.1007/s11229-012-0120-0
]Search in Google Scholar
[
11. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
12. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
13. Leonardi, P. M. (2009). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communication Research, 35(3), 407-441.10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01357.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
14. Lipton, E. B. (2005). President’s message: Advancing the tide of technology education. The Technology Teacher, 64(6), 29.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
15. Martin, P. (2018). On the horizon. Advance HE. Retrievable from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/horizon
]Search in Google Scholar
[
16. Martin, S., López-Martín, E., Lopez-Rey, A., Cubillo, J., Moreno-Pulido, A., & Castro, M. (2018). Analysis of new technology trends in education: 2010–2015. IEEE Access, 6, 36840-36848.10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2851748
]Search in Google Scholar
[
17. Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
18. Morley, L. (2012). Imagining the University of the Future. In The Future University (pp. 38-48). Routledge.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
19. New Media Consortium and National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (2005). The Horizon Report 2005 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
20. New Media Consortium (2014). NMC Horizon Report 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
]Search in Google Scholar
[
21. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
22. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
23. Salmon, G., & Asgari, T. (2019). Higher Education–the Last Bastion? Distance and eLearning Policy and Development – The Role of e-Learning and Distance Education in the Modernisation Process of Economies, Societies and Education Systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved from https://www.eurodl.org/materials/briefs/2019/Salmon_Asgari.pdf
]Search in Google Scholar
[
24. Shaw, P. (2018). A practice orientated framework to support successful higher education online learning. Proceedings of the European Distance and E-Learning Network Annual Conference, 19th June, Genoa. ISBN: 978-615-5511-23-3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
25. Shaw, P. (2019). Shaping tomorrow, tackling emerging challenges today. European Distance and E-Learning Network Annual Conference, 19th June, Bruges.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
26. Shaw, P., & Green, P. (2019). Shaping tomorrow, tackling emerging challenges today. Advance HE Annual Conference, 3rd July, Newcastle.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
27. Shaw, P., & Stone, J. (2019). Exploring a framework for shaping tomorrow, tackling emerging challenges today. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Annual Conference, 19th February, Anaheim.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
28. Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: a new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 220.10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.220
]Search in Google Scholar
[
29. Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational Design Research. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203088364
]Search in Google Scholar
