This research is a qualitative, autoethnographic study of antifragility in fragile spaces. It was written using data from Applied Theatre workshops, rehearsals and exercises; as well as questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and open discussions in focus groups with at-risk learners from Quintile 1-3 high schools, their educators, senior management staff, parents, caregivers and peers. Methodologically, social constructionism functioned as the schematic map that positioned the writing/writer between the self and others, and provided the philosophical scaffolding necessary to elucidate data analysis and interpretation. Institutional theory and organisational culture centered the analytical framework once thematic analysis had been conducted across the data sets. This reflexive, feminist paper exhumes and explores fragile spaces in Western Cape Quintile 1-3 schools, using drama and conscious, performed acts of vulnerability (on and off stage) as a means of activating antifragility in the performer and the observer. The data collection took place in the Western Cape in South Africa, and specifically refers to learners and their networks and blended learning ecosystems in that context. Noted conversants include Brown, Taleb and Butler. The findings of this study include a shift in how we define “success” in a fragile environment and an acknowledgment of antifragility as a strategy that is always in motion. Static achievement and a singular definition of learner excellence are shown to be the undesirable opposite of iterative antifragility and adaptive, holistic executive function and socio-cultural competence; and learner wholeness (as experienced and embodied by the learner themselves) is referred to as “flourishing”.

We live in a turbulent environment in which the unpredictability of crises is unprecedented. Following this, crisis management literature has shifted from traditional planned and process-based approaches to contemporary concepts that emphasize reactivity. Although contemporary scholars label traditional approaches as outdated, it remains unknown if real organizations agree. The question thus becomes, how do different organizations apply crisis management theory in practice and what influences the design of their systems? This qualitative study relies on focus groups and interviews from SMEs, large, and state-owned organizations. The empirical findings show that predominantly traditional crisis management systems are utilized. The systems are mainly proactive when crisis vulnerability is limited but extend to include a reactive and flexible strategic element when the organization is large and faces unpredictable crises. Relying on a purely contemporary crisis management system is rare but possible, as demonstrated by one small organization. Overall, the crisis management design is influenced by size, organizational structure, crisis vulnerability, identity, expert opinions, similar organizations and where the responsibility for crisis management is placed in the organization.  Practitioners can use this study to understand how to apply traditional and contemporary crisis management systems. Scholars can use this study to understand the gap between theory and practice, which opens several avenues for further research that concern influences and characteristics of real crisis management systems.