Crisis management during the COVID-19 pandemic response within an Australian higher education institution – a qualitative analysis

ABSTRACT COVID-19 has caused a revelation of change across the world. Higher education leaders faced significant challenges during the unprecedented crisis, particularly in the early stage of the pandemic. We examined the University of Sydney’s response to the pandemic using key informant interviews with leaders at different levels of the university structure to fill the crisis management gap in Australia’s higher education sector. Key themes that emerged from the interviews focused on the importance of communication strategies in crisis, how the level of collaboration affected the pandemic response efforts and that adaptability to change was essential for engagement and communication in a time where face-to-face contact was limited. We applied the thematic analysis results from the interviews to Mitroff and Pearson’s crisis management model to reflect on the University’s response. We identified several recommendations from the experiences for future public health crisis responses.


Introduction
In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic (Lee & Morling, 2020).Australia's tertiary education sector was one of the most significantly impacted industries.International flight cancellations, mandatory quarantining, border closures, and physical distancing resulted in far-reaching challenges (Brammer & Clark, 2020).Universities were also faced with the enormous task of keeping staff and students safe, redesigning education delivery for both local and offshore students (Crawford et al., 2020), and maintaining the quality of education by quickly adjusting to the changes required to prevent the spread of the disease.University crisis management and leadership played a crucial role in decision-making and managing rapid changes required in higher education policy and delivery during this time.They urgently needed to navigate the swift movement from face-to-face to online learning (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020;Ali, 2020;Crawford et al., 2020;Dumulescu & Muţiu, 2021) and were faced with significant funding constraints (Bairagi, 2020;Izumi et al., 2020).
CONTACT Mu Li mu.li@sydney.edu.auSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Room 325, Edward Ford Building, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia Recent studies have examined how the higher education sector faced and acted upon its unique challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.Pather et al. investigated the disruptions to education delivery (Pather et al., 2020), and leadership in adopting educational technology (Lalani et al., 2021).Another study developed a model of educational leadership for academics by taking on student perspectives (Yokuş, 2022).McGaughey et al. conducted a large survey to examine how Australian academics experienced and perceived the impact of COVID-19 (McGaughey et al., 2021).Studies have also shared experiences and concerns about using e-learning and redesigning assessment to meet the requirement of an online environment in health and medical education and how the pandemic impacted students' communication skills (Alanazi & Alshaalan, 2020;Gardanova et al., 2023).
With crises becoming more frequent and the potential to 'permanently tear the fabric of an institution', such as the higher education sector, it is crucial to gain a better understanding of how crisis management responses in a tertiary education institution were operationalised during the COVID-19 pandemic.Most of the published work to date has had a narrow scope, focusing on one aspect of the emergency response or perceived impact on staff or students.There is little research that takes a crisis management perspective and uses a crisis management model to understand how tertiary education institutions managed their pandemic response.

Mitroff and Pearson's crisis management model
Crisis management is the framework or system put in place by an organisation to effectively mitigate risks incurred from internal and external crises (Simola, 2005).Crisis management models can provide a valuable frame of reference for organisations to develop an emergency management plan.These models include critical information to drive effective decision making in a crisis situation, such as the roles and responsibilities of staff during a disaster, the hierarchy of authority in making decisions, and which communication channels to use during a crisis.
Mitroff and Pearson's crisis management model has a six-phase paradigm frequently used in organisational crisis management preparation (Simola, 2005) (see Figure 1).Signal detection refers to the 'pre-crisis' phase of crisis management and involves monitoring and responding to the early signs of a possible crisis (Mitroff et al., 1987).The preparation stage involves searching for risk factors of a crisis and deciding on an action plan should an emergency arise (Mitroff, 2005;Pearson & Mitroff, 2019).The third stage of the model (containment) focuses on limiting the damage of a crisis, while the fourth (recovery) addresses recovery programs that are implemented to resume normalcy within an organisation (Mitroff, 2005).'No fault learning' involves reflection on the crisis and evaluation of the damage as well as the organisation's vulnerabilities and strengths (Mitroff, 2005).Lastly, the redesign stage uses these learnings to redesign an organisation with improved crisis management performance (Mitroff, 2005).
The University of Sydney developed the Emergency Management Plan in 2016 based on a four-step cycle of 'prevention', 'preparedness', 'response', and 'recovery' (Izumi et al., 2020;University of Sydney, 2016)

Sample and data collection
We invited academic and professional leaders from the University's central portfolio, the Faculty of Medicine and Health (the Faculty), and several schools within the Faculty using a combination of purposive and convenience sampling.We conducted in-depth interviews with 13 key informants between January and March of 2021.Among the key informants, four were from the University's central portfolio, five were from the Faculty, and four were from the school level within this Faculty.The participants represented a variety of educational and managerial roles.
Nine interviews were conducted via Zoom due to ongoing lockdown measures and non-compulsory return to campus during data collection.Four of the thirteen interviews were conducted face-to-face, and strictly followed the University's social distancing rules.Two interviewers were present in every interview, with one conducting the interview and the other acting as a note taker.Interviews were conducted according to a topic guide developed by the research team.The topic guide covered areas including how COVID-19 related policies were determined at the university (central portfolio) or faculty level, how

Signal DetecƟon
Recognising the indicators before a crisis occurs

Probing/ PreparaƟon
IdenƟfiying and deciding upon an acƟon plan

Containment
MiƟgaƟon plans to contain the crisis

No fault learning
ReflecƟon and learning from past experiences

Redesign
Learnings are used to redesign these were communicated to staff and students, the awareness of university crisis management strategies, and how these were implemented.As part of the informed consent process, participants consented to have the interview audio recorded.Each interview lasted about one hour.Author 2 prepared detailed narrative summaries after each interview.
A participant information sheet and informed consent form were sent to all participants, including the consent to have the interview audio-recorded.They returned written consent to the researchers before their scheduled interviews.Ethics approval for this study was granted by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee [2020/745].

Data analysis
We conducted a thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke (Clarke et al., 2015).Author 1 read and re-read each interview summary to become familiar with the results.Initial thoughts on each interview were then documented by Author 1 in a separate Word document as a memo to iteratively consolidate reflections on the interviews throughout the analysis process (Lester et al., 2020).
We took an inductive approach to coding.Author 1 performed coding in three phases of iterative review and feedback with Author 2 and Author 4. Codes were collated into possible themes by reading over the codes and identifying patterns in the data.Initial themes were broad and were typical of a 'domain summary' approach.These themes were reviewed several times to find patterns of 'shared meaning'.Themes were identified by considering whether it was relevant to answering the research questions.Sub-themes were created when there was a large amount of coded data under a main theme to describe further and reflect upon the data.Due to the identifiable nature of their roles, quotes provided will only refer to participants' level of their role -Central Universitylevel, Faculty-level, or School-level.

Results
Most participants (10/13) spoke positively about how the University of Sydney managed the COVID-19 pandemic overall, and the role that the Faculty of Medicine and Health played.However, a minority of individuals (three respondents) were more critical regarding how the University handled the pandemic.While these responses were not overtly negative, they provided valuable information on the challenges they experienced with the response efforts.
Three themes emerged through thematic analysis that capture the key operational dynamics of the University's crisis management response.

Theme 1: communication was crucial in responding to the crisis
Participants spoke highly of the collaborative communication within the Faculty of Medicine and Health and how this allowed for proactive discussions during the pandemic.There was also, however, frustration voiced around the lack of clarity and communication between different departments, internal and external to the University.
Participants felt this led to mixed messages and uncertainty about who was in control of making final decisions.Three subthemes were identified, focusing on how messaging was delivered, the value of these, and the challenges.
In those early days when everything was new and unprecedented, and people were still managing their own culture shock and response to the environments, it was really important that they felt they were being taken care of and that they would find things out, particularly those responsible for large groups of staff, so that they themselves were ready and aware of the information before they would get the avalanche of questions coming their way.(Central University-level) We did find there was a fabulous level of engagement with professional learning . . .they run their own Yammer group, which was incredibly active, and there was lots of sharing of information . . . it just made for a faster, more effective, more collective sense of doing this together and responding in ways that were sort of more collaborative and helpful (Central University-level)

Overcommunication: a valuable way to disseminate information
Overcommunication was seen as an important aspect of a communication strategy within the University.In this context, overcommunication referred to the attempt to reach people by sending messages, sometimes repeatedly, and through multiple channels to ensure the staff and students received the messages.This was in response to people needing a lot of information quickly, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic and during outbreaks.Overcommunication was also used as a mitigation strategy to prevent gaps in information, as crisis management response teams knew that people would not be reading all the correspondence they received.Only one participant noted that overcommunication might have led to some disconnect, as content oversaturation could lead to people 'tuning off ' from the messaging.
The first thing we wanted was to be really honest with people . . ..secondly it was to overcommunicate.I mean, just to be constantly talking with the community about what we were doing, how we were going to respond and the measures we put in place (Central University-level) I think one thing I learned is that you're never overcommunicating, basically, because people's perceptions of the risks and the problems change, sometimes hourly, let alone daily (Central University-level) Almost everything that I worked on and did in this area comes back to how do I break the chain effectively.And so, that's why I spent much of my time saying the same thing over and over and over again, in different kinds of ways (Central University-level)

Consistent and clear communication was highly valued
Clarity and consistency of communication were also important, as the pandemic changed rapidly in its early stages.Participants also highlighted the significance of having clear and applicable policies to drive their decisions during the pandemic.The New South Wales Health policy, the university emergency response policy, and the National Framework for Communicable Disease Control Guidelines (Australian Government Department of Health) were all mentioned as essential for getting information and translating it to suit the University's requirements.
The decision was made that we should (move to remote learning) . . .some faculties were keen to move to remote, others were not, others wanted to delay a semester, there was kind of a fracturing in the decision-making and the fracturing of the reality in the absence of a really clear decision (Central University-level) I think one of the success factors at the University of Sydney's response was how closely aligned we were to the New South Wales Health guidelines . . .and we really positioned that as a voice of authority in our decision-making.It was absolutely critical for us around the clarity, the consistency and also the regularity of those regulations, public health orders and the communication that we were getting from the state government to absolutely drive and inform the decisions within the University of Sydney (Central University-level) It was challenging, however, to ensure that there was clear and consistent communication that met all the needs of the diverse cohorts of students and staff at the University.The people responsible for communicating with staff or students working in particular areas had to do their best within the available information.Indeed, one participant stated they were as 'clear as possible' to the research community in letting people know what they could and could not do.

Lack of communication and consultation between the central committee and experts in the faculty of medicine and health
Several participants were quite open in their frustrations with the lack of support, communication, and coordination that was received from the central university level.They felt communications were not applicable to some groups, such as researchers who engaged in laboratory work; these groups were 'forgotten'.As a result, the participants had to make their own decisions.For example, one participant highlighted the communication difficulties around the changes for higher research degree candidates and felt unclear messaging on the rules for these students.This lack of clear communication and support led to a sense of contention and was viewed unfavourably during the interviews.Frustration was also felt in response to the University's central portfolio making decisions around the University's COVID-19 response without adequately consulting key expert stakeholders from the Faculty of Medicine and Health who were closely involved in the COVID-19 responses at the state or national level.
I don't think that the University accepted or realised that there was significant national expertise and international expertise within the Faculty that they could use to help them (Faculty-level) At the start, there was not really any consultation or coordination (between the central university and faculty level working groups) . . .If that happened again, I think that's a key learning, that there's expertise in different areas, not just central . . .its hard to be too collegial but I think that was frustrating for the bigger team in the faculty working group (Faculty-level) There were certainly times when I heard that the Faculty didn't view the central portfolio favourably in terms of some of the decision that were made . . . the faculty kind of had to do its own thing (School-level) Theme 2: the level of collaboration affected the success of the response Many participants spoke at length about collaborations among groups or teams during the pandemic.This included regular collaboration between the academic and operational response teams with leaders in the University, or the frequent online collaboration between the university and international research teams.Discussions focused on how the teams within and outside the University worked well together to manage the challenges.Internally, this appeared to be mostly occurring within faculties and schools, externally between local or state government departments, and internationally within research and field placement teams.
Within the University, there was kind of a collaborative effort that I think everyone recognised as something . . .The response teams really did bring together the people who are engaged in the sort of relevant leadership roles and they were able to work together fantastically (Central University-level) Staff supported each other and created a sense of community that existed before, but I think it was enhanced (School-level)

Strong social cohesion across teams is essential to help guide decisions
Participants spoke about working collectively to face shared challenges and cooperating with each other for the 'common good'.Some emphasised that even though specific teams played an important role in the response, it was 'all staff' who collaborated and worked together that really bought the overall management of the response together.Some participants spoke on the importance of having faculty leaders involved in the emergency response teams to be able to communicate what was happening at a local level.Diverse operating models among organisations external to the University of Sydney resulted in more difficulty maintaining a degree of social cohesion.This lack of consistency lead to challenges in how specific student cohorts, such as those on medical degree placements would be supported and managed through the pandemic.
It was a time of extraordinary collaboration . . .whatever could be done at sector level was done at sector level, whatever could be done at state level was done at state level.And within the University, there was a kind of collaborative effort that I think everybody recognised as something exceptional (Central University-level) It was great that not only do we have the Faculty of Medicine and Health COVID-19 group, which was three times a week, but heads of school and leadership would meet . . .I think that was actually very, very good for us getting to know each other because the Faculty had only just formed. ..forming a group (was) a unified approach to common enemy (Faculty-level) So New South Wales Health is a tapestry of different districts all operating in different kinds of ways . . .One hospital in one district would say 'we're not going to take third year medical students', and one district would say that they would, and so there's been a lack of consistency across the state more broadly (Central University-level)

Clear feedback loops between teams was an important factor in crisis management
Several participants spoke on the importance of feedback loops and how they were used to improve communications across the University.For example, some felt the campus communication network acted as a feedback circle between different audiences to improve communication uptake.The importance of having two-way communication between different platforms, such as virtual meetings, email, or student representatives, was also mentioned.Participants felt this was especially useful in hearing how students were handling the response.
So, things like the University of Sydney rants channel, was a great way to figure out what was going on for students . . .We keep an eye on those kinds of things . . . to see what the tone of student engagement is and what their experience is, is a great feedback loop (Central University-level) We were almost having daily meetings with the student reps or some team, so we'd sort of close the loop where we were hearing things at each end.We'd use that to inform the other (heads of clinical school) because it was evolving (School-level)

Theme 3: adaptability to change was crucial for engagement and distribution of information
The lockdowns enforced during the COVID-19 pandemic required the University to move quickly to adapt new modes of engagement and distribution of information.Despite some more negative attitudes prior to the pandemic, technology became seen as an essential part of engaging and communicating with staff and students.The University adapted to using multiple modes of communication technology, including email, social media, virtual meeting platforms, websites, webinars, public forums, and online training modules.These were important for the engagement and distribution of information as they increased the ease and accessibility of connectivity to others in the University.The reach of these modes of communication technology created a sense of community.
We have proven we can be trusted and to get the work done.If anything, we can be more creative, because we have less interruption in many respects, by doing some work from home (School-level) I think technology has really reduced the transaction cost of people engaging . . .and being able to learn in a way that turning up to a physical meeting, maybe they 'wouldn't have been as engaged (Central University-level) Technology was huge . . .I think people learned that they could keep using Zoom and other platforms to keep the engagement and contact and indeed the research going . . .just the engagement through technology is fantastic (Central University-level)

Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic imposed significant challenges for the tertiary education sector in Australia and internationally.This study explored the emergency responses at the University of Sydney during the early stages of the pandemic.We identified three main themes: communication, collaboration, and technology.The theme most frequently mentioned among the key informants was the importance of consistent and clear communication.It was most valuable in supporting their decision-making during a period requiring rapid changes to plans.Overcommunication was seen as valuable through different and multiple channels such as email, virtual meetings, or social media platforms to get the message across.The key informants highly valued collaboration among various teams and staff members during the pandemic.Technology was recognised played an essential role in the University's response.Respondents were very positive about how the transition to online teaching and learning was handled at different levels of university management and how it allowed for high levels of engagement and collaboration among staff and students during the pandemic.

Application to Mitroff and Pearson's model
We applied Mitroff and Pearson's crisis management model to assist with comprehending our research findings and the response efforts.We explored factors of the University's crisis management response that may have influenced the success of this response at each of the stages of the model.As the study was conducted in the early stage of the pandemic, we have only focused on the first three stages of the model; signal detection, probing/ preparation, and containment (see Figure 2).This is a similar approach to Oleksiyenko et al., who analysed how several universities tackled the problems caused by COVID-19, using the first three stages of Mitroff and Pearson's model (Oleksiyenko et al., 2022).

Signal detection
It is critical to detect early warning signals that highlight an issue before a crisis occurs (Mitroff, 2005).This stage requires organisations to acquire internal and external information and filter through which signals require attention (Mitroff & Pearson, 1993).The interviews revealed that effective communication was crucial in the 'signal detection' stage of the pandemic to assist with the cascade of information delivery and decision-making.This study found overcommunication was very positive, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic when the situation was frequently changing.This stage can also be met with challenges.One study of universities in Bangladesh, Uganda, and Cambodia looked at the 'decentralisation' of communication in the first few months of the pandemic.For one university, this fracturing of information between different departments resulted in a delayed response early in the COVID-19 pandemic (Oleksiyenko et al., 2022).Indeed, participants in this study experienced challenges in providing messages that adequately reflected various needs across the University.This suggests a need to balance consistency and tailoring messages to best suit different groups in diverse institutions such as tertiary education at the signal detection phase.

Preparation
This stage involves having policies and plans with a long-term outlook to prepare for crisis (Mitroff & Pearson, 1993).Many changes were happening at the University in the early stages of the pandemic in 2020.For example, the University cancelled face-to-face education sessions in mid-March, restricted access to laboratory equipment, and enforced social distancing on campus.These early responses by the University reflected the New South Wales government guidelines (NSW Government, 2023).Many respondents commended the efficiency and effectiveness of these early decisions for assisting with preventing the virus from spreading on campus.Having clear and consistent communications in the initial response phase gave staff and students adequate time to prepare for the changes ahead.
One Faculty of Medicine and Health participant commented that many staff members were not initially aware of how to prepare for a pandemic.They reflected further by stating that the effective communication and collaboration in the Faculty of Medicine and Health assisted in setting up the structures for COVID-19 readiness within the Faculty across clinical schools and research facilities.Khoo et al. found a similar result when they applied Mitroff and Pearson's model to how the COVID-19 response was handled in a rehabilitation centre, where positive relationships between staff allowed for effective clinical networking and communications (Khoo et al., 2021).This greatly assisted in designing their COVID-19 preparedness strategy (Khoo et al., 2021).Further, a study by Dumulescu and Muţiu highlights the importance of teamwork and collaboration across teams, emphasising the importance of respecting the competence of others to allow for a collaborative approach (Dumulescu & Muţiu, 2021).Therefore, strong social cohesion between faculties and university groups could help emergency preparedness during a crisis response.This will have a positive flow-on effect for the remaining Mitroff and Pearson model stages.Further to this, it could be argued that the lack of social cohesion and collaboration between university groups, such as the university central portfolio management team and faculties/schools, can greatly hinder crisis leadership and management.

Containment
The success of this phase is usually determined by how well the institution 'prepared' for the emergency, as outlined in stage two (Pearson & Mitroff, 2019).
An example of a containment strategy at the University of Sydney was the rapid transition to online modes of communication and engagement.This assisted in efficiently moving staff, educators, and students from face-to-face to virtual contact at the start of the crisis.Moving to online communication and engagement was readily accepted by most participants and was seen as an effective way to engage and communicate with staff and students easily.Other studies revealed similar findings.For example, research by Oleksiyenko et al. found that private universities in their study were able to adapt well to the changes in online learning, with academics speaking highly of the engaging nature of online learning and how they created webinars and online events to support students in the change (Oleksiyenko et al., 2022).Conversely, another study of academic staff in Australia reported many challenges in transitioning to emergency online teaching, using the term 'digital fatigue' (McGaughey et al., 2021).This highlights some of the challenges that can occur at the containment stage.
Of the unique nature that the majority of the key informants were members of the Faculty of Medicine and Health, a lack of engagement from the University's central portfolio with the health experts who had played key roles in advising the state and national governments was identified.Although this may not neatly fit in one particular phase, it is worth noting that timely consultation and engagement could likely enhance the preparation and containment phases.

Post-crisis reflection
In the past three years, most courses at the University of Sydney have been delivered entirely online.At the time of preparing this paper for publication, the University of Sydney was moving into a recovery phase of its COVID-19 crisis management response, with face-to-face teaching to resume as of semester 2, 2023.Whether or not it is a pandemic, the higher education sector will likely face other crises.This sector must build resilience to these crises by better preparing for and responding to them.Reflecting again Mitroff and Pearson's six-stage crisis management model, the University had done well in 1) establishing multiple communication channels, 2) effectively engaging the staff and students, and 3) swiftly implementing online teaching supported by digital technologies.However, the lack of clear and consistent messages regarding specific groups, such as higher research degree students involved in laboratory work, caused confusion and frustration.
Critical reflection on the experience involves considering the direct and indirect impacts of that crisis event (Wang et al., 2009).For example, Wang & Hutchins reflected on the learnings from a crisis of university shootings in Virginia, United States of America (Wang & Hutchins, 2010).They found three key learnings; confusion around privacy health laws which resulted in delayed communication and intervention, shortcomings in the University's emergency response plan, and a lack of training given to emergency staff (Wang & Hutchins, 2010).
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments turned to medical experts and their subject authority to justify the measures to stop the spread of the virus (Lavazza & Farina, 2020).Several highly respected infectious disease prevention and management experts from the Faculty of Medicine and Health held advisory positions at the State and National levels of the COVID-19 pandemic response.We found the lack of engagement with these experts in the University central portfolio resulted in some frustration.A meaningful learning from this study is the effective engagement of subject experts in future crisis management.The University established the Academic Team and the Operational Team promptly at the beginning of the pandemic to coordinate changes in teaching and research, and to support technology, and business (University of Sydney, 2020).It could benefit from a robust science advisory structure and knowledgeable scientific experts to support crisis management (Matus et al., 2023).Acknowledgment and timely consultation with these stakeholders in the early stages of the response may help to strengthen future crisis management responses.Further, incorporating their reflections into the learning process would present valuable opportunities to build on the last three stages of the model, recovery, no fault learning and redesign.This involves restructuring an organisation's technical, structural and cultural factors, which may contribute to the success of a crisis management response (Wang et al., 2009).
Several respondents interviewed in this research have since taken on new positions or left the University of Sydney.This highlights the need to establish sustainable structures and practices to support transferrable response efforts.It will mitigate the risks of delaying public health crisis management strategies and ensure the sustainability of crisis preparedness and management expertise.

Strengths and limitations
A strength of this study is that we engaged key informants across the University, Faculty, and School levels who led the response and management of the pandemic emergency responses.This in-depth cross-section exploration of a smaller number of staff in leadership roles has allowed for rich insights into their experiences.Namely, we focused on the Faculty of Medicine and Health, and gained specific insight into the role that health experts could have played in the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the value and the role they could play in the management of future public health emergency responses.
Universities are, however, comprised of diverse cohorts of staff and students who would have had differing experiences during the pandemic.The views of staff from the Faculty of Medicine and Health cannot represent the University as a whole.Moreover, results from one university limit the generalisability to other higher education institutions.Further research with different faculties and universities will help strengthen our understanding of how crisis management responses have been operationalised in other higher education settings.Finally, the interviews were conducted relatively early in the pandemic and reflect our understanding at that point in time.Crisis management responses likely evolved alongside the rapidly changing nature of the pandemic, so this should be a contextual consideration when considering our research results.

Conclusion
This qualitative study explored crisis management in the University of Sydney during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.Three main themes emerged; clear and concise communication, collaboration among teams and groups, and technology to facilitate changes in communication and teaching.Using Mitroff and Pearson's crisis management model as the conceptual framework, we identified factors in our study that could influence the success of the first three stages of the model.We also highlighted the value and roles of health experts in the preparedness and response to future pandemics.These findings have important implications for how universities can effectively design and implement crisis management responses.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Factors influencing success at the first three stages of Mitroff and Pearson's crisis management model as evidenced in this study.
. While many emergency response theories and models are available, the foundation of the University of Sydney Emergency Management Plan arguably aligns closest with Mitroff and Pearson's model.The study aimed to elicit what we can learn from the University of Sydney's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.We applied Mitroff and Pearson's model as the conceptual framework of this study to present a more comprehensive interpretation and reflection of the University of Sydney's response to the pandemic.