Designing During Disruption: Supporting Complex Adaptive Systems of Teacher Professional Development on the Thai-Myanmar Border

• In Event: Learning Under Fire: Trauma, Stress, and Resilience in War Zones

Proposal

A mosaic of state and non-state actors provide teacher professional development (TPD) to educators in Karen and Karenni communities in Myanmar and in the temporary shelters in Thailand. These parallel systems reflect both the diversity of and continued struggle for self-determination by education actors from a multiethnic 'nation' marked by pluralistic histories since independence from British colonialism in 1948 (South & Lall, 2016). Rinehart and Tyrosvoutis (2023) identified that non-state TPD providers navigated the COVID-19 pandemic by employing complexity-aware approaches enabling adaptation and responsiveness. Now, against a backdrop of intensified and widespread conflict combined with destabilizing funding insecurity, the ability for education systems to adapt to dynamic environments remains near-essential.

This study examines teacher professional development systems as complex adaptive systems (CAS): "composed of many interacting components, the interaction of which led to self-organization and emergence" (Van Geert and Steenbee, 2014, p. 22). While CAS theory has been used to analyze systems in stable and high-income settings and in international humanitarian-development response, there has been limited inquiry into how endogenous systems formed in response to conflict and crisis and marked by resource-scarcity may function in complex adaptive ways. CAS theory offers a useful lens towards understanding efficient, effective, and locally attuned system behavior in unstable contexts, especially when systems are imagined, designed, and operated by those directly affected by conflict and crisis.

This study synthesizes key findings from two recent publications applying complexity theory to examine teacher professional development in refugee and ethnic education settings on the Thai-Myanmar border: Adaptable by Design: Comparative Insights into Karen Teacher Professional Development (Tyrosvoutis, 2025) and Systems Thinking and Complexity: Comparative Insights into Karenni Teacher Professional Development Systems (Rinehart, Layi Chan, and Tyrosvoutis; 2025). Both studies employed a comparative case study approach (Vavrus & Bartlett, 2022) across contexts, with participants from six stakeholder groups: teachers working directly in classrooms, teacher trainers, school leaders, local education authorities, organizational senior leaders, and donors.

In settings of protracted conflict and crisis, education system behaviors often defy linear planning logics in order to maintain intended outcomes. The research reveals that emergence and adaptation are not design features chosen in ideal conditions but are compelled by context. Security concerns dictate TPD offerings, forcing real-time decisions based on imperfect data. The system exhibits uneven but critical feedback pathways, with effectiveness depending on interaction frequency between local, middle, and central actors and data-sharing infrastructure quality.

A central tension exists between preferences for centralized, programmatic service delivery and the reality of needing locally responsive adaptation. System designers desire consistency and structured planning, while field conditions necessitate decentralized problem-solving, reflecting competing logics: bureaucratic control versus adaptive self-organization. In practice, the system organically gravitates toward the CAS approach, seeking coherence through contingent variation. There is a fundamental tension between scale and flexibility—centralized systems provide standardization and institutional legitimacy but may sacrifice agility, while local adaptations enhance responsiveness but may compromise system coherence or scalability.
The findings suggest the teacher professional delopment systems approach a tipping point, potentially deepening adaptive capacities for more localized delivery or consolidating around a formalized model with external assistance. The findings suggest that the TPD system is not just adapting to disruption - it is being actively shaped by actors embedded within the disruption. Findings demonstrate how educational governance can emerge from below, through relational practice, rather than through imposed institutional design. However, the findings also reveal structural tensions, particularly between centralized ambitions for control and field-based demands for flexibility. Navigating this tension will be important to the future coherence and stability of the system.

To that end, the findings draw on the work of Mitchell et al. (2022) and their framing of endogenous systems leadership, which refers to distributed leadership grounded in local realities, involving multiple levels (local, middle, and central) within the system. Endogenous systems leadership requires active participation from all three levels, with each level drawing upon its unique experiences, capacities, perspectives, and contextual realities to inform decision-making and shape collective action within the system. In contexts affected by conflict and crisis, it is not uncommon for agents at the local and middle levels to demonstrate responsiveness and ingenuity in organizing and providing services under challenging conditions. Endogenous systems leadership actively supports and leverages this responsiveness and ingenuity. Rather than viewing problems merely as obstacles, it frames them as opportunities for innovation. Moreover, endogenous systems leadership values diversity of practices and perspectives. It does not insist upon uniformity or complete consensus; instead, it recognizes that actions may differ across contexts, provided there is alignment on overall visions and commitments. This leadership approach anticipates and embraces the unexpected. It aims to foster flexibility and openness to experimentation and learning, rather than adherence to the status quo.

Endogenous systems leadership is well-suited for complex adaptive systems because of their inherently dynamic, emergent, and context-dependent nature. Complex adaptive systems involve numerous interacting agents, and endogenous systems leadership aligns with this characteristic by distributing authority and responsibility. Consequently, leadership becomes a social practice rather than a hierarchical position. This promotes responsiveness and flexibility within diverse local contexts, which is critical to navigating complexity. A broader implication is that in contexts where governance is being reimagined, endogenous leadership may offer a viable alternative to traditional state-led or donor-driven planning models. It aligns with how (revolutionary) systems actually behave under disruption - that is, as CAS - and offers a more contextually grounded pathway for system development - coherent without being rigid, accountable without being technocratic.

Author

• Greg Tyrosvoutis, The Inclusive Education Foundation