Research Context:

Hamas's attack on Israel on the 7th of October started a war with tragic consequences for both sides. One of these consequences was the displacement of 120,000 Israelis who live close to its northern and southern border for their own protection. The displaced have been placed in hotels and other forms of provisional housing for an indefinite period (by the time this proposal was submitted, they have yet to return). To cater to the educational needs of the displaced, provisional schools were opened across the country in the hotels themselves, cultural institutions, and other locations. These schools relied mainly on volunteers, including many former teachers, from the cities to which the displaced had been moved. The schools were designed to provide immediate, short-term educational support for tens of thousands of pupils.

Research focus:

The presented research examines the experiences of the educational staff in the schools for the displaced. We interviewed 16 staff members of these schools (see Method section for more details). The aim of the research was to explore some of the challenges faced by educational staff in temporary educational settings and to inquire into their coping strategies. More specifically, we have asked how teachers and administrators set goals adapted to their needs and the students' capabilities in institutions characterized by a high-degree of uncertainty and disorder. Since most of those interviewed described the situations in these schools as chaotic, we placed an emphasis on questions of educational/organizational adaptations and solutions that the educational staff developed to stabilize the system and achieve its objectives. The following questions formed the basis for empirical examination: (1) How are order, disorder, and autonomy expressed in the way educators and administrators present their challenges, their goals, and their coping strategies within the institutions? (2) How does the educational staff create order? What methods do they use? Is it a 'new order' or an 'old order' (which prevailed before the war)?

Theoretical framework:

The research is grounded in complexity theory, a framework initially devised in the natural sciences for the study of dynamic systems (Mitchel, 2009). This theory played a significant role in shaping the research questions and provided valuable insights for the data analysis process. Complexity theory, which is increasingly used in the social sciences and education, offers powerful models for analyzing change, innovation, and the behavior of systems (Byrne 2022, Radford, Burns & Koster, 2016, Radford 2008). By placing emphasis on concepts such as self-organization, emergence, path dependence, and the influence of external factors, it provides a valuable lens through which to explore the dynamic elements of education in general and in the schools for displaced students in particular (Boulton, Allen and Bowman, 2015). Given that this research took place during a time of crisis marked by ongoing change, uncertainty and instability, complexity theory has proven exceptionally valuable in understanding how teachers and administrators responded to their challenging circumstances.

Objectives: The primary objective of this research is to explore and understand the methods teachers employ to create order in institutions that are characterized by disorder. The unique educational settings of schools for the displaced, often lacking in conventional structure, offer a distinctive opportunity to study how teachers can autonomously operate and establish their own goals and practices in the absence of traditional organizational frameworks. Another important aim of the research is to examine how teachers exhibit their autonomy during times of crisis, highlighting their adaptive strategies and decision-making processes.  By addressing these issues, we hope to provide some insights into the overall organization and functioning of schools in emergency situations.

The presented research is a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with educational staff in short-term emergency schools in Israel (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). We conducted 16 interviews with staff members in schools that were established to meet the needs of children who were displaced from their homes due to war. Most interviews were held with teachers and educators, but some were also conducted with school principals and educational counselors. Each of those selected to be interviewed in the study has worked in these emergency schools for at least three weeks. The interviews lasted for 40-60 minutes and were recorded and transcribed. Those interviewees were asked about the challenges they face and how they navigate between their personal goals and the institutional objectives within the complex and frequently changing work environments in which they operate. None of the teachers interviewed were themselves displaced or had experienced substantial trauma or direct injury in the war. The data collected in the interviews was analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Maryring, 2015). Qualitative content analysis is a type of research method that combines qualitative and quantitative techniques (Mixed Method) and aims to derive a structure of categories from qualitative data. The categories in qualitative content analysis can either emerge from the data itself or be borrowed from existing theories. When pre-determined categories are used, the qualitative content analysis is called "deductive" (Mayring, 2015) or "directed" (Directed Qualitative Content Analysis; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). We relied on directed methods since we used complexity theory to guide our analysis and borrowed concepts from it, such as self-organization and path dependence. The interviews were coded using the “Nvivo” software, with the upper categories derived from complexity theory being inhabited with and elaborated upon by emergent sub-categories stemming from the data. In addition, each interview was also read and examined as a separate complete narrative in order to gain a broader perspective (Clandinin and Pushor, 2007).

Although the data analysis has not yet been completed, some preliminary findings already emerged from the initial examination. Teachers identify disorder as a major threat and strive to eliminate it. This perception drives them to exert considerable effort towards reinstating order. Although in the literature on complex systems, disorder is often conceptualized as an opportunity to create awaited positive change, we found that this possibility has rarely even been considered by the teachers interviewed (Floke, 2006). It was also found that in facing disorder, teachers rarely adopt new goals or aims that are responsive to the evolving situation. Instead, they tend to revert to familiar behaviors and practices, often resorting to the basics of traditional teaching and learning, even when such actions contradict their own educational ideologies. This finding corroborates existing research on crises in dynamic systems, adding a layer of empirical evidence to the theoretical framework that distinguishes between reactive and proactive crises (Novalia and Malekpour, 2020). However, the research shows that within the framework of their established goals, teachers demonstrate a notable degree of operational flexibility. They re-examine and adjust their goals to what the situation allows, exhibit a willingness to innovate and adapt their methods to suit the specific challenges presented by disorderly conditions. This adaptability is crucial in navigating the complexities of such environments and enabling the self-organization of classes (Davis and Sumara, 2014). Moreover, the research highlights the value teachers place on their autonomy (Hong and Youngs, 2014). Practicing autonomy emerges as a powerful tool that enables them to manage disorder effectively and empowers them in their professional roles. While they cherish this autonomy, teachers also self-impose limits on it, suggesting a nuanced understanding and application of their independence. By the time the conference will start we will complete the data analysis.

Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., and Bowman, C.. Embracing complexity: Strategic perspectives for an age of turbulence. Oxford University Press, 2015. Burns, T. and Köster F., eds. Educational research and innovation governing education in a complex world. OECD Publishing, 2016. Byrne, D, and Callaghan, G. Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Routledge, 2022. Clandinin, D. J., Pushor, D., & Orr, A. M. (2007). Navigating sites for narrative inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 21–35 Davis, B, and Sumara, D. Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Routledge, 2014. Folke, C. "Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses." Global environmental change 16.3 (2006): 253-267. Hong, W. P. & Youngs, P. (2014). Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 20–33. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping and N. C. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 365–380). Springer. Mitchell, Melanie. Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford university press, 2009. Novalia, W. and Malekpour, S. "Theorising the role of crisis for transformative adaptation." Environmental science & policy 112 (2020): 361-370. Radford, Mike. "Prediction, control and the challenge to complexity." Oxford Review of Education 34.5 (2008): 505-520.