Search results

This study hypothesizes the limitations of standardization as an interoperability development tool within emergency management.

Pragmatism and Morgan's seminal organizational metaphors inform the conceptualization of the Interoperability Orange metaphor using symbolic logic and visual imagery.

The essence of standardization is homogeneity. Within emergency management, it is commonplace to develop legislation to standardize policies, procedures, training, equipment and terminology to engender interoperability among first responder and associated organizations. Standardization is achievable with similar or a small number of organizations. However, it is unlikely, if not impossible, in the context of disasters and catastrophes, given the broad range of organizations, groups and individuals typically involved. This diversity of cultures, subcultures, norms, values and indigenous and technical languages intimates that standardization is counterintuitive, particularly in disasters and catastrophes. The posited Interoperability Orange metaphor demonstrates that standardization as a policy, though desired, is theoretically unobtainable in enlarging multiorganizational environments. Thus, new perspectives, policies and solutions for interoperability are needed.

The posited theory builds on the growing body of metaphor-based emergency management research. The Interoperability Orange provides an accessible and easy-to-use communicative tool that aids theoretical cognition – notably within multicultural English as a Second Language environments – as it enables a deeper more critical and explicit understanding of the limits of standardization expressed via metaphor, symbolic logic and imagery.

The paper reflects on the findings of a program of research, which, over many years, has explored ways of promoting greater equity in schools and education systems. Using examples from the field, the paper provides an explanation of what this involves. In so doing it identifies potential barriers that have to be addressed and suggestions as to how these might be overcome. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper draws on a series of studies what uses a “development and research” approach This is one of a family of methodologies referred to by as “design-based implementation research.” These aim to transcend traditional research/practice barriers to facilitate the design of educational interventions that are “effective, sustainable, and scalable.” They are seen as occurring when researcher and practitioner knowledge meet in particular sites, aimed at producing new knowledge about ways in which broad values might better be realized in future practice.

The experiences described in this paper suggest a way forward that policy makers could use to ensure that the impetus that comes from greater school autonomy will lead to improvements that will benefit all children and young people.

In thinking about how the approach described might be used more widely it is essential to recognize that it does not offer a simple recipe that can be lifted and transferred between contexts. Rather, it defines an approach to improvement that uses processes of contextual analysis in order to create strategies that fit particular circumstances.

The argument presented is based on an assumption that education systems have further potential to improve themselves, provided policy makers allow the space for practitioners to make use of the expertise and creativity that lies trapped within individual classrooms. The aim must be to “move knowledge around” and the best way to do this is through strengthening collaboration within schools, between schools and beyond schools.

The paper draws together findings from an extensive program of research in order to develop new thinking regarding ways of promoting equity in education.