Developing a Digital Governance and Policy-Making Model to Enhance Educational System Resilience in the Face of Crises: A Grounded Theory Study

Abstract

This applied qualitative study aimed to develop a digital governance and policy-making model to enhance the resilience of the educational system in the face of crises. A grounded-theory approach based on the Strauss and Corbin paradigm was used. The study population comprised senior educational managers and policymakers, crisis-management experts, university faculty members, school and district administrators, experienced educational personnel, and other experts in education and crisis management in Mazandaran Province, Iran. Participants were selected purposively on the basis of theoretical saturation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 experts; theoretical saturation was reached after approximately 12 interviews, and interviewing continued to the fifteenth participant to strengthen data adequacy. Data were organized and analyzed in MAXQDA through open, axial, and selective coding. The findings showed that policy-making for educational system resilience is shaped by causal, contextual, and intervening conditions. The main causal conditions were structural crises in the education system, educational and social inequalities, ineffective past policies and planning, the increasing intensity and recurrence of natural and social crises, weak preparedness and skills among educational human resources, and weak governance and institutional coordination. Contextual conditions involved the institutional and administrative structure of education, geographic and climatic conditions, household economic circumstances, educational and social culture, digital infrastructure, higher-level policies and regulations, and regional scientific capacity. Intervening conditions included financial support and resource allocation, the quality of educational management and leadership, digital technology and infrastructure, human capital and professional skills, institutional participation, and political and managerial stability. Six policy strategies were identified: developing virtual education and digital learning infrastructure, empowering educational human resources, reforming educational governance and policy structures, developing an educational crisis-management system, strengthening social and inter-institutional participation, and promoting educational equity while reducing access gaps. Consequences included continuity of education during crises, greater institutional resilience, improved learning quality, reduced inequalities, stronger human-resource preparedness, greater social capital and public trust, and educational innovation and transformation. The resulting paradigm model positions flexible, participatory, future-oriented, and risk-informed policy-making as the central mechanism through which educational systems can sustain essential functions and adapt under crisis conditions.

Keywords: digital governance; educational policy-making; educational resilience; digital transformation; educational technology; crisis management; grounded theory

1. Introduction

Education systems are critical infrastructures for human development, social cohesion, economic participation, and the intergenerational transmission of knowledge. Their value becomes especially visible during large-scale shocks, when disruption to schooling can compound health, economic, geographic, and social vulnerabilities. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the scale of this risk: school closures affected learners across almost all countries, and the shift to remote provision exposed major differences in institutional preparedness, digital access, teacher capacity, and household resources. International analyses therefore increasingly frame resilience not as a temporary emergency response but as a property of education systems that must be cultivated before a crisis occurs and sustained through preparedness, continuity, recovery, and transformation (UNESCO, 2021; World Bank, UNESCO, & UNICEF, 2021).

The concept of resilience originally emphasized a system’s capacity to absorb disturbance while maintaining core functions (Holling, 1973). In organizational and public-policy settings, resilience additionally involves anticipation, adaptive capacity, coordinated action, learning, and the ability to reorganize after disruption (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2011). Applied to education, this means that schools and education authorities must be able to preserve learning opportunities, protect vulnerable groups, mobilize alternative delivery modes, and recover without reproducing or deepening existing inequalities. Evidence from OECD countries suggests that educational resilience is closely related to equality of opportunity and to the institutional conditions that allow students and schools to cope with disadvantage (Vicente et al., 2021).

Digital capacity has become a central element of this discussion. The pandemic forced systems to move rapidly from ordinary classroom instruction to emergency forms of remote teaching. Hodges et al. (2020) emphasized that such emergency remote teaching is distinct from intentionally designed online learning because it is implemented under time pressure and constrained conditions. Nevertheless, the experience demonstrated that digital infrastructure, platforms, content repositories, communication systems, and teachers’ digital competence can provide essential continuity when physical attendance is disrupted. At the same time, digitalization can reproduce social inequalities if access to devices, connectivity, digital literacy, or appropriate learning environments is unequal (Francis & Weller, 2022; Golden et al., 2023). Consequently, resilient digital governance must address both technological continuity and educational equity.

International policy responses after COVID-19 have increasingly combined system resilience, digital learning, teacher preparedness, and institutional coordination. Reimers and Schleicher (2020) highlighted the need for coherent planning that protects learning, teachers, and vulnerable students during disruption. Vincent-Lancrin et al. (2022), drawing on global examples of learning continuity, showed that successful responses typically involved coordination among ministries, schools, teachers, families, and technology providers rather than a single technological intervention. More recent World Bank work similarly emphasizes that prior investments in remote-learning curricula, teacher training, communication systems, and appropriate technologies can determine whether an education system is able to sustain learning during future crises (World Bank, 2024).

Governance is therefore as important as technology. Collaborative-governance research demonstrates that complex public problems are more effectively addressed when public institutions, experts, civil-society actors, and other stakeholders participate within structures that support trust, shared understanding, and coordinated decision-making (Ansell & Gash, 2008). In education, crisis conditions intensify the need for clear roles, rapid information flows, local discretion, and coordination across administrative levels. Centralized systems may offer consistency, but excessive centralization can slow adaptation when local conditions differ markedly in geography, infrastructure, or socioeconomic vulnerability. Flexible governance must consequently balance national standards with operational authority at provincial, district, and school levels.

Human-resource readiness is another core determinant of resilience. Technology has little value if teachers and managers cannot use it effectively, adapt instruction, make decisions under uncertainty, or support students facing psychosocial and material barriers. Evidence on professional development indicates that sustained, collaborative, practice-oriented learning is more effective than isolated training events in changing educator practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). During disruptive conditions, leadership also becomes more distributed and adaptive; school leaders must maintain communication, trust, staff support, and organizational learning while responding to rapidly changing constraints (Harris & Jones, 2020). Thus, digital governance and resilience require the simultaneous development of infrastructure, professional competence, and leadership capacity.

These issues are particularly relevant in Iran, where the rapid shift toward virtual education during the COVID-19 crisis exposed both opportunities and structural constraints. Ahmady et al. (2020) identified barriers including unequal infrastructure, limited access to devices, insufficient digital competence, and the need for stronger coordination and professional preparation. Subsequent empirical work in Iran has likewise shown that virtual education can sustain teaching but requires better processes, infrastructure, and institutional planning (Heydari et al., 2023). Such evidence suggests that crisis-related digitalization should not be treated as a temporary substitute for face-to-face schooling; rather, it should inform long-term policy for continuity, blended learning, equity, and system preparedness.

Mazandaran Province provides a relevant setting for examining these interactions because educational policy is implemented across urban, rural, mountainous, and geographically dispersed areas that differ in infrastructure and exposure to environmental hazards. The study was designed to move beyond a narrow focus on a single crisis and to identify a policy architecture capable of supporting educational continuity across diverse disruptions. A grounded-theory approach was selected because the study sought to derive a contextual model from the experiences and interpretations of managers, policymakers, educators, academics, and crisis-management experts rather than test a predetermined causal framework.

Accordingly, the present study aimed to develop a digital governance and policy-making model for enhancing educational system resilience in the face of crises. Specifically, it sought to identify the causal conditions that generate the need for resilience-oriented policy, the contextual and intervening conditions that shape policy implementation, the principal strategies required to strengthen resilience, and the educational, organizational, social, and technological consequences expected from those strategies. By integrating these dimensions into a grounded paradigm model, the study provides a policy-oriented account of how educational systems can become more flexible, equitable, digitally capable, and crisis-ready.

2. Methods

2.1 Study design and analytical approach

This applied qualitative study used grounded theory and the paradigm-model approach associated with Strauss and Corbin (1998). Grounded theory was appropriate because the research question concerned processes and relationships among conditions, actions/strategies, and consequences rather than the measurement of predefined variables. The analysis proceeded through open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, with continuous comparison across interviews and categories.

2.2 Study setting and participants

The qualitative study population consisted of senior managers and educational policymakers in the General Department of Education of Mazandaran Province; managers and experts in crisis management and educational planning; university faculty members in the province with expertise in educational policy and resilience; school and educational-district managers with experience of educational crises; experienced teachers and educational staff; and specialists in crisis management and social resilience. This composition was intended to capture policy, implementation, academic, and frontline perspectives relevant to educational resilience.

2.3 Sampling and data collection

Purposive sampling was used and recruitment continued according to the principle of theoretical saturation. In total, 15 experts and knowledgeable participants were interviewed using in-depth semi-structured interviews. Theoretical saturation was reached after approximately 12 interviews; however, interviewing continued through participant 15 to strengthen data adequacy.

2.4 Data analysis

Interview data were managed and organized in MAXQDA. During open coding, meaningful statements and concepts were extracted from the interview texts and assigned initial labels. During axial coding, related concepts were grouped into higher-order categories and relationships among categories were examined. Selective coding was then used to identify the central phenomenon and integrate the final conceptual model. The resulting paradigm comprised causal conditions, contextual conditions, intervening conditions, policy strategies, and consequences. Data were repeatedly reviewed during analysis to strengthen internal coherence among categories and their relationships.

3. Results

3.1 Participant characteristics

Among the 15 experts and specialists participating in the qualitative phase, 11 (73.3%) were men and 4 (26.7%) were women. Six participants (40.0%) were 40–45 years old, four (26.7%) were 46–50 years old, and five (33.3%) were aged 51 years or older. All participants (100%) were married. Eight participants (53.3%) held a master’s degree and seven (46.7%) held a doctoral degree.

3.2 Causal conditions

Analysis of the expert interviews showed that the formation of policy for strengthening educational system resilience was influenced by a set of structural, managerial, and environmental factors. Six main categories were identified as causal conditions. First, structural crises in the education system—including weak infrastructure, inadequate school facilities, deteriorated educational spaces, dependence on physical attendance, and the absence of an emergency education system—demonstrated the need to reconsider educational policy. Second, educational and social inequalities created gaps in access to educational opportunities, particularly in deprived and underserved areas, thereby undermining resilience. Third, the ineffectiveness of previous policies and planning, including the absence of preventive policies, implementation weaknesses, and a gap between policy formulation and practice, created broad vulnerability. Fourth, the increasing intensity and recurrence of natural and social crises, including floods, earthquakes, epidemics, and climate-related events, made the need for sustainable and flexible policies more visible. Fifth, inadequate preparedness and skills among educational human resources—including insufficient crisis-management training and weak technological skills—were identified as important drivers. Finally, weak governance and institutional coordination, including insufficient coordination among relevant bodies, centralized decision-making, and the absence of effective collaborative mechanisms, emerged as a major causal factor. The detailed open and axial codes for these causal conditions are presented in Table 1.

3.3 Contextual conditions

Seven main contextual categories were identified. The institutional and administrative structure of education—particularly centralization, bureaucracy, limited authority at operational levels, and weak coordination—shaped how resilience policy could be designed and implemented. Geographic and climatic characteristics, including dispersed schools, hard-to-reach areas, and exposure to natural hazards, affected preparedness and response capacity. Household economic and livelihood conditions influenced families’ ability to obtain educational equipment and sustain participation during crisis. Educational and social culture, including attitudes toward virtual learning and the level of parental and community participation, could either facilitate or constrain implementation. The level of technological development and digital infrastructure—especially internet access, smart equipment, and stable educational platforms—was an essential context for continuity. Macro-level policies and higher-level regulations provided or limited the legal and strategic basis for coordinated crisis action. Finally, regional scientific and research capacity could support evidence-informed policy through applied research and stronger university–education-system links. The corresponding open and axial codes for the contextual conditions are summarized in Table 2.

3.4 Intervening conditions

Six intervening conditions were identified as factors that could strengthen or weaken the implementation of resilience strategies. Financial support and resource allocation influenced the availability and distribution of funds for infrastructure, virtual education, and crisis management. The quality of educational management and leadership shaped strategic decision-making, foresight, coordination, and the management of change. Digital educational technology and infrastructure affected the continuity of virtual learning and equal access. Human capital and professional skills reflected the knowledge, expertise, motivation, and preparedness of teachers, managers, and staff. Institutional participation and cooperation described the degree of interaction among education authorities, universities, crisis-management organizations, local institutions, the private sector, and civil-society organizations. Finally, political and managerial stability influenced policy continuity, long-term vision, monitoring, and the sustainability of programs across administrative changes. The detailed coding structure for the intervening conditions is presented in Table 3.

3.5 Policy strategies

Six coordinated and multidimensional policy strategies were identified. The first was the development of virtual education and digital learning infrastructure through stable online education systems, digital content, blended learning, and greater technological capacity. The second was the empowerment and training of educational human resources in crisis management, digital literacy, emergency decision-making, and individual and organizational resilience. The third involved reforming educational governance and policy-making through reduced centralization, delegation of authority, organizational flexibility, and stronger cross-sector coordination. The fourth strategy was to develop an educational crisis-management system through protocols, operational guidelines, rapid-response mechanisms, simulations, and continuity planning. The fifth was to strengthen social and inter-institutional participation by engaging families, universities, civil-society organizations, the private sector, and relevant agencies. The sixth was to promote educational equity and reduce access gaps through targeted provision of equipment, stronger connectivity in underserved areas, support for disadvantaged students, and measures to reduce digital inequality. The open and axial codes underlying these six policy strategies are presented in Table 4.

3.6 Consequences

Seven principal consequences were identified. First, continuity and sustainability of education during crises would reduce complete school closures, learning interruptions, and delays. Second, institutional resilience would increase through greater organizational adaptability, response capacity, preparedness, and support systems. Third, the quality of learning and instruction would improve through more diverse teaching methods, better digital content, stronger assessment, and effective use of technology. Fourth, inequalities would decline and educational equity would improve through more equal access and stronger support for underserved groups. Fifth, human-resource capability and preparedness would improve through stronger teacher skills, digital literacy, managerial capacity, psychological readiness, problem solving, and teamwork. Sixth, social capital and public trust in the education system would be strengthened through improved family participation, school–community relations, stakeholder satisfaction, and cooperation. Seventh, innovation and transformation would expand through normalized virtual education, blended learning, creativity, technology acceptance, and future-oriented policy. The corresponding open and axial codes for these consequences are summarized in Table 5.

3.7 Integrated paradigm model

The integrated analysis identified the central phenomenon as flexible and resilient educational system policy-making in the face of educational crises. This phenomenon reflects the need for a dynamic, participatory, future-oriented, and risk-informed form of policy-making that strengthens the capacities for anticipation, preparedness, response, adaptation, and reconstruction across different levels of the education system. In this model, resilient policy-making goes beyond reacting to individual crises. It requires flexible structures, intersectoral coordination, the use of digital technologies, human-capital development, stakeholder participation, and effective crisis-management systems. Educational resilience becomes achievable when causal conditions, contextual settings, intervening factors, implementation strategies, and expected consequences are connected within a coherent system. The model therefore positions flexible and resilient policy-making as the core mechanism supporting continuity of learning, educational quality, equity, and long-term sustainability under changing and crisis conditions. The relationships among the model components are synthesized in Figure 1.

4. Discussion

The study conceptualizes educational resilience as a multidimensional policy and governance problem rather than a narrow emergency-response capability. The causal conditions indicate that crises do not create vulnerability from nothing; instead, they expose accumulated weaknesses in infrastructure, planning, equity, human-resource preparedness, and institutional coordination. This interpretation is consistent with the broader resilience literature, in which the capacity to absorb shocks depends on structures and adaptive capabilities developed before disruption occurs (Holling, 1973; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2011). It also accords with contemporary education-policy thinking that preparedness and continuity should be embedded in routine system planning rather than activated only after schools close (UNESCO, 2021; World Bank, 2024).

Structural weakness and inequality were prominent causal categories. The model suggests that resilience cannot be evaluated solely by whether a school or ministry can shift instruction online. If students in rural or economically disadvantaged areas cannot access devices, connectivity, stable platforms, or suitable learning spaces, then a digitally enabled response may preserve schooling for some while increasing exclusion for others. Research during COVID-19 documented this pattern across multiple settings, with economic disadvantage strongly associated with unequal access to reliable internet and remote-learning resources (Francis & Weller, 2022; Golden et al., 2023). The Iranian context has shown similar tensions, including uneven infrastructure, device access, and teacher readiness (Ahmady et al., 2020). Accordingly, educational equity in the present model is both a strategy and an outcome: it must guide resource allocation during policy implementation, and successful implementation should in turn reduce access gaps.

The contextual findings further show why resilience policies cannot be transferred mechanically from one setting to another. Administrative structures, geography, household economics, local educational culture, digital infrastructure, legal frameworks, and scientific capacity all influence implementation. A policy suitable for a well-connected urban district may not be appropriate for dispersed rural or mountainous areas exposed to different environmental and transport risks. This contextual sensitivity is consistent with the general principle that resilient systems must adapt to local risk profiles and resource environments rather than rely on a single standardized response. It also reinforces the value of evidence-informed policy centers and stronger links between universities and education authorities so that decision-makers can use local data in planning.

Governance emerged as a recurring theme across the causal, contextual, and strategic dimensions. Weak coordination and excessive centralization were identified as sources of vulnerability, whereas delegated authority, rapid decision-making, intersectoral coordination, and participation were identified as strategies. This pattern is consistent with collaborative-governance theory, which emphasizes that complex public problems require structured interaction among state agencies, professionals, communities, and other stakeholders (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Crisis management in education often crosses organizational boundaries: continuity may depend simultaneously on education authorities, telecommunications providers, emergency-management organizations, local government, universities, families, and civil-society groups. A resilient governance model therefore requires predefined coordination mechanisms rather than improvised relationships established after a crisis begins.

The intervening conditions emphasize the implementation gap between policy design and policy effect. Financial resources, leadership quality, digital infrastructure, professional skills, institutional cooperation, and managerial stability can either enable or obstruct otherwise sound policies. This is an important distinction because a formally adopted crisis plan may create little resilience if budgets are unstable, internet systems fail, managers lack decision-making authority, or staff have not been trained. Evidence from educational leadership research during COVID-19 similarly showed that adaptive leadership, communication, trust, and distributed problem solving were essential in disruptive conditions (Harris & Jones, 2020). The present findings extend that argument by situating leadership alongside financing, technology, professional capacity, and policy continuity within a single grounded model.

Digital infrastructure was identified in both contextual and intervening roles and was also central to the policy strategies. This repeated appearance indicates that technology is not a stand-alone intervention. Its usefulness depends on system integration, human competence, affordability, and governance. Bonfield et al. (2020) described digital transformation as a broader pedagogical and institutional change rather than simple adoption of new tools. Likewise, Hodges et al. (2020) warned against equating emergency remote teaching with deliberately designed online learning. The findings of the present study support a similar distinction: resilience requires stable platforms, content repositories, teacher preparation, blended-learning models, and continuity protocols developed before emergencies. It also requires offline or low-bandwidth alternatives where connectivity cannot be guaranteed.

Human-resource empowerment was another central strategy. The open codes included crisis-management training, digital literacy, emergency decision-making, communication, psychological-professional resilience, and continuous in-service education. These are broader competencies than technical platform use. Teachers and school leaders must interpret rapidly changing conditions, communicate with families, maintain learning engagement, manage uncertainty, and adapt pedagogy. Research on effective professional development emphasizes sustained, collaborative, practice-focused learning rather than one-off workshops (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). For resilience policy, this implies that crisis competencies should be integrated into ongoing professional learning and leadership-development systems rather than reserved for occasional emergency drills.

The model’s crisis-management strategy also has practical significance. Participants identified protocols, rapid-response maps, school-level teams, simulations, scenario planning, warning systems, and continuity management. These elements correspond to a shift from reactive response toward anticipatory risk management. The Sendai Framework literature similarly emphasizes science, risk information, preparedness, and institutional coordination as foundations for disaster-risk reduction (Aitsi-Selmi et al., 2016). For education systems, scenario-based planning can help clarify which functions must continue, which services can be substituted, how vulnerable learners will be reached, and which level of authority can make time-sensitive decisions.

The consequences identified in the model extend beyond the immediate goal of keeping classes running. Participants expected improved learning quality, stronger institutional resilience, greater human-resource capability, increased social capital and public trust, and educational innovation. This is important because a resilience agenda can become overly defensive if it is understood only as protecting the pre-crisis status quo. Zhao (2020) argued that major disruption can also create opportunities to reconsider how and where learning occurs. The present model similarly suggests that digital infrastructure, blended learning, decentralized problem solving, and stronger stakeholder participation can support long-term transformation when they are institutionalized rather than abandoned after an emergency.

The study therefore contributes a context-specific framework for linking digital governance with educational resilience. Rather than treating digital transformation, crisis management, educational equity, and governance reform as separate policy domains, the model positions them as mutually dependent. The policy implication is that investment in only one domain is unlikely to produce sustained resilience. For example, providing devices without teacher capacity and platform stability will have limited effect; professional development without decision-making authority may not translate into adaptive practice; and crisis plans without stable financing may remain symbolic. Resilience should therefore be governed as a cross-cutting system objective with explicit responsibilities, budgets, indicators, and accountability mechanisms.

For Mazandaran and similar settings, the findings support a layered policy architecture. National authorities can establish minimum standards, legal frameworks, digital interoperability, equity principles, and crisis protocols. Provincial and district authorities can adapt these standards to geographic risk, infrastructure, and local resource conditions. Schools can maintain operational continuity plans, staff roles, communication mechanisms, and inventories of vulnerable students and alternative learning options. Universities and research centers can provide evaluation, scenario analysis, and evidence synthesis. Such a structure would align strategic consistency with local flexibility, which is central to the grounded model developed in this study.

5. Policy and Practice Implications

The findings support several linked policy priorities. First, education authorities should establish national and provincial standards for learning continuity that define minimum digital, organizational, and communication capacities for different crisis scenarios. Second, dedicated and predictable budget lines are needed for educational crisis management, connectivity, equipment, platform maintenance, and support for disadvantaged learners. Third, teacher and administrator professional-development systems should incorporate digital pedagogy, blended learning, crisis decision-making, communication, and psychosocial preparedness as continuing competencies. Fourth, governance reform should clarify the authority of local levels during emergencies while maintaining coordination with higher-level policy. Fifth, schools and districts should conduct periodic scenario exercises and maintain practical continuity protocols rather than relying only on general strategic documents. Sixth, equity monitoring should identify students and areas at risk of digital exclusion before crises occur. Finally, universities, crisis-management organizations, local institutions, civil-society organizations, and the private sector should be integrated into standing coordination mechanisms so that partnerships are operational before a major disruption. These implications are consistent with international lessons emphasizing advance preparation, teacher capacity, inclusive digital infrastructure, and cross-sector coordination as foundations of resilient education systems (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2022; World Bank, 2024).

6. Limitations and Future Research

Five main limitations should be considered. First, the research was conducted in Mazandaran Province; its cultural, social, economic, geographic, and managerial characteristics may have influenced participants’ views, and transfer of the findings to other provinces should therefore be cautious. Second, because the study was qualitative and grounded in expert perceptions and experiences, interpretive and individual biases may be present. Third, access to some senior managers, policymakers, and crisis-management specialists was constrained by executive workloads and time limitations. Fourth, the educational environment—especially educational technology and emerging crises—changes rapidly, so some recommendations may require future updating. Fifth, the study developed and explained a resilience policy model but did not test the practical effectiveness of each proposed strategy in real-world implementation. Future research should therefore validate the model quantitatively, including survey research and structural modeling at national scale; compare resilience policies across provinces and countries; examine implementation processes longitudinally; and assess whether specific combinations of digital investment, decentralization, professional development, and equity measures produce measurable improvements in continuity and learning outcomes.

7. Conclusion

This grounded-theory study presents educational resilience as the product of relationships among structural vulnerabilities, contextual conditions, implementation capacities, coordinated policy strategies, and system-level consequences. The model identifies flexible and resilient educational system policy-making as the central phenomenon. Such policy-making is participatory, future-oriented, digitally capable, equity-sensitive, and informed by risk management. The findings show that resilient education cannot be built through technology alone. It requires governance reform, stable resources, professional capacity, institutional coordination, crisis-management systems, social participation, and targeted measures to reduce access gaps. When these dimensions are aligned, the education system is better positioned not only to maintain learning during disruption but also to improve quality, equity, trust, innovation, and long-term adaptability. The model therefore offers a practical framework for moving from short-term crisis response toward an educational system that is prepared to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and learn from future crises.