Crisis micro‐learning: A framework for understanding the micro‐flow of policy learning and Australia's COVID‐19 response

Abstract COVID‐19 has intensified interest in crisis policy learning, yet the micro‐level interactions among political, bureaucratic, and expert actors remain underexplored. We conceptualise an ideal‐type framework for the micro‐flow of crisis learning, an ordinarily epistemic and context‐specific process of individual‐level interactions, where lessons co‐constitute with the spaces of actors, processes, and institutions, travel across them, and iteratively build as they flow over time. We additionally introduce a matrix to trace the ideal micro‐flow of crisis learning and identify challenges to this ideal. We demonstrate the framework's analytical utility by applying it to Australia's COVID‐19 acute phase (2020–2021), mobilising qualitative evidence from semi‐structured interviews with 34 Australian politicians, senior public servants, and policy experts, including former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Health Minister Greg Hunt, and Chief Medical Officers Brendan Murphy and Paul Kelly. We find that Australia's initial COVID‐19 micro‐learning was open and effective, facilitated by adaptive institutions like National Cabinet and informed by inter‐crisis lessons from the Black Summer bushfires. However, as the pandemic progressed, learning became increasingly politicised and path dependent, impacting policy effectiveness. We therefore highlight how this micro‐flow of crisis learning impacts broader policy outcomes and provide insight into what enhances and hinders crisis learning for future crisis management. Points for practitioners Crises are dynamic and evolve rapidly. Processes and institutions for iterative learning to facilitate responsive policy action should be prioritised in crisis response design. When learning during a crisis, actors should balance consensus‐building with critical deliberation to ameliorate groupthink. To aid critical deliberation in crisis learning, expertise should be diversified from the beginning. Input from a range of experts, including those from marginalised groups, will help build a holistic picture of crisis impact. Expert selection processes should be transparent and clearly explain how experts are chosen to inform crisis learning. This can help prevent over‐reliance on personal networks and enhance public legitimacy and trust.