An Exploration of School Organization Metaphors and Their Contribution to School Change

This study explores the development of organizational theory through understanding comprehensive resources of metaphors and the synergy of these metaphors’ changes in momentum. The comprehensive resources of organizational metaphors emphasize that exploration and detection of the complementary relationship between multiple metaphors can promote the development of organizational theory and the acquisition of generic competence requirements to stimulate the synergistic momentum for school reform and to respond to student needs. In this study, questionnaires were used to analyze the opinions of 409 school members across 28 middle schools. The questionnaire explored 17 metaphors and their qualitative meanings. Subsequently, according to the meanings of the metaphor momentum, 41 principals, administrative staff, teachers, and parents were interviewed. The results demonstrate that with bureaucracy as the core of the thought, machine metaphor, community metaphor, politics metaphor, organism metaphor, and brain metaphor interact to promote the development of school organization theory to stimulate school change.

Original Research
Taiwan's middle schools are facing several interrelated challenges, including low birthrate, lack of teacher empowerment, and need for school-based curriculum development. As a result, schools increasingly emphasize market competitiveness, the democratic participation of teachers in decisionmaking, and the growth of professional learning, with organizational metaphors serving as an important mechanism for diagnosing the needs of schools (K. Smith, 1992). Community metaphors, meanwhile, can help school leaders perceive the importance of individual and team learning (Handy, 1995), teacher self-efficacy (Diem et al., 2018;Van Veelen et al., 2017), teacher introspection (Vanblaere & Devos, 2018), and teacher job satisfaction (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2015) while also providing a conceptual system for school reform (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). School leaders' use of organizational metaphors to strengthen social justice practice helps to identify services and resources for all students (Arnold & Carwford, 2014). It also promotes the development of school organization theory (MacKechnie & Donnelly-Cox, 1996), which creates greater momentum for reform (Scribner et al., 1999) and expands learning opportunities (Diem et al., 2018). Sergiovanni (1994) emphasized that the identity of an educational administration should be rooted in organizational knowledge and that the use of metaphors should follow an understanding of the context to stimulate organizational learning and urge knowledge innovation (Cornelissen, 2005). Therefore, the use of metaphor to understand human behavior contributes to the exploration of organizational theory while also expanding research on teaching and learning (Cerıt, 2006). Organizational metaphors are also often used by people to interpret meaning (Tait-McCutcheon & Drake, 2016) and frame perceptions of their own experiences. Simultaneously, through school leaders' creation of new perspectives, metaphors can also contribute to change management within organizations. In other words, organizational metaphors shape people's cognition. Promoting a mutual understanding of their meaning, therefore, represents a path toward organizational change (Marshak, 1996), and school leaders' use of organizational metaphors to solve problems is closely related to school reform.
As stated by Morgan (1986Morgan ( , 1997Morgan ( , 2006, school leaders should use multiple organizational metaphors to explore the development of organizational theory. However, they should also be critical of each metaphor to understand its advantages and disadvantages, and be aware that each metaphor may be perceived by stakeholders as either assisting or resisting change (Doving, 1996). Accordingly, their complex learning competencies can help to explore the complementary relationship between multiple metaphors, enhance the advantages of metaphors for change, and eliminate their disadvantages (Earle & Kruse, 1999). This will enable school leaders to use metaphors to develop organizational theory, lead schools to make effective reforms, and improve students' learning achievements (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2015).
The construction of school organization theory is rooted in the power of change, meaning that the research method for organizational metaphors is more qualitative than quantitative, frequently involving case studies (Van den Hoven & Litz, 2016). However, research on the ability of organizational metaphors to stimulate organizational change requires the integration of qualitative studies with quantitative studies (Morgan & Zohar, 1998). Therefore, it is first necessary to explore the effect of the complementary relationship between organizational metaphors on school change, that is, if leaders only use metaphors with weak momentum, the weak metaphors may be overshadowed by other, stronger ones, negating their impact. Conversely, metaphors with strong momentum reinforce one another, leading to a synergy between the change in momentum and the construction of the most advanced organizational theory. This leads school members to undertake greater responsibilities (Walker, 2018), promoting school effectiveness (Hall & McHenry-Sober, 2017).

Meaning of Metaphors
Metaphors are presented in the form of language to both formulate and describe concepts (Duru, 2015) and promote the understanding of concepts through imaginative use of examples that make the concepts more accessible (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). For example, a building structure can be used as a metaphor for an organization. Using the logical structure of raising the levels gradually, organizational theory can be constructed. In addition, metaphors can capture how individuals frame problems (Schon, 1979). Metaphors frame how individuals perceive meaning (Arnett, 1999) to promote the perception of organizational theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Therefore, the ability of metaphors to create meaning can play a key role in organizational change (Christensen & Wagoner, 2015).
In addition, metaphors allow the transference of knowledge from familiar to unknown domains (Tsoukas, 1991), reshaping linguistic meanings and how people conceptualize their surroundings (Bialostok, 2014). Metaphors affect how people structure conceptual systems and how they interpret meaning (Short, 2001). That is, metaphor is a mechanism to understand the reality of an object; it involves constructing a special concept via a metaphorical comparison with similar things to increase understanding of the object (Cutright, 1999). Simultaneously, by enriching the imagination (Miller & Fredericks, 1988), metaphoric meanings and their different interpretations construct people's inner lives (Cerıt, 2006).

The Application of Metaphors in the Development of School Organization Theory
Metaphor application emphasizes the interpretation of human life forms and action changes, and aims to stimulate the exploration of the development of school organization theory (Sergiovanni, 1994). The first question to ask is, "How does your work organization operate?" (Ryman et al., 2009). This indicates that the development of school organization theory can use loosely coupled metaphorical framing (Rowan, 2002). In the context of a school, the question suggests that the principal has room to control the teachers, but that the teachers can also question the principal's position based on their professional autonomy.
Metaphors have been widely used in school organizations, especially the eight metaphors proposed by Morgan (1986Morgan ( , 1997Morgan ( , 2006: machine metaphor, organism metaphor, brain metaphor, politics metaphor, cultural metaphor, cultural cage metaphor, self-transformation metaphor, and ugly metaphor. These metaphors have an influence on the development of schools (Earle & Kruse, 1999). The machine metaphor emphasizes the professional division of labor, hierarchy of office, and a set of rules, whose driving force of reform comes from the guidance direction of clear rules. Its advantage is that it emphasizes control and prediction to improve efficiency, whereas its disadvantage is that rigid rules lack flexibility and are easy to be eliminated when the environment changes (Earle & Kruse, 1999). The organism metaphor emphasizes the survival of adaptation to the environment, and it considers the individual and organization's needs. Its driving force of reform comes from recognizing the importance of the environment. Its advantage is that it can explore the relationship between the organization and the environment and pay attention to the survival of the organization. Its disadvantage is that it ignores the human nature of pursuing interests and compresses the meaning exploration of self-construction (Pauchant, 1995). The brain metaphor emphasizes that the quality of self-control decision-making and information processing is promoted through group learning, and its driving force of reform comes from value exploration of direction-setting. Its advantage is that it strengthens the awareness of organizational learning ability, and its disadvantage is that it ignores the necessity of conflict. The culture metaphor emphasizes the entity construction of sharing and interaction and people's choice of lifestyle. Its driving force of reform comes from people's ability to create reality. Its advantage is that it can provide a reference framework for experience and wisdom, and its disadvantage is that it is easy to form the myth of concentration of power. The politics metaphor emphasizes that the pursuit of interests is that human nature will produce conflicts of interests, while power exercises to resolve conflicts of interest. Its driving force of reform comes from creating effective reform plans. Its advantage is that probing resource allocation can promote the sustainability of reform, whereas its disadvantage is that it will destroy the trust relationship (Earle & Kruse, 1999). The cage metaphor emphasizes beyond the limitation of perspective and the trap of thinking, and the driving force of reform comes from the decoding of the relationship between the organization and morality. Its advantage is that it can facilitate the detection of obstacles to the path of reform, and its disadvantage is that it puts too much effort into the exploration of assumptions. The self-transformation metaphor emphasizes that the dynamic of urging continues self-creation through the attention of tiny changes in the external environment. Its driving force of reform comes from the contradiction harmonization of the dialectical process (Schoenborn et al., 2016). Its advantage is that it will promote continuous communication and its disadvantage is that the change is too idealistic. The ugliness metaphor emphasizes the challenge of organizational domination and avoids people living in a state of being crushed. Its driving force of reform is rousing people's motivation to challenge hegemony and reduce morbidity. The advantage is that the pursuit of social justice can respond to the nature of education, and the disadvantage is that the challenger is exposed to the risk of being suppressed. As a community metaphor, the additional metaphor has been widely used in the field of educational administration (Sergiovanni, 1994). It is another metaphor worthy of further study. The community metaphor emphasizes mutual trust among members of the organization (Jenkins, 2012;White, 2002). Its driving force of reform comes from the support of intelligence. Its advantage is that it can arouse professional responsibility, and its disadvantage is that it places too much emphasis on people's ability to continue to reform (Earle & Kruse, 1999).
The following metaphors related to organizational change can strengthen the exploration of the dominant position of school members to enhance the motivation of reform. The neuroticism metaphor addresses the dark side of the organization to avoid members' negative thinking, partial execution, and self-centered destruction (Robinson & Tamir, 2005). It has the advantage of resolving anxiety and generating motivation to break through the status quo, whereas its disadvantage is that excessive anxiety produces morbidity (Kets De Vries & Miller, 1984). The chameleon metaphor emphasizes the agility of the self-role to change the organizational structure to strengthen the protective role in the face of environmental crises (Bawa, 2017). Its advantage is that communication can be integrated into a variety of new environments, whereas its disadvantage is that it is fickle and unprincipled (Remenyi et al., 2005). The temple metaphor emphasizes the meaning of symbols and solves problems through rituals, celebrations, and beliefs. Its advantage is that it can offer special value and establish a high-profile image, and its disadvantage is that the ceremony becomes a placebo for failure (Wolf, 2002). The jungle metaphor emphasizes that people in the organization are selfish and that people obey the law of the jungle, which evokes participation in the game of the survival of the fittest. Its advantage is that the survival advantage can practice the idea, whereas its disadvantage is that the loser secretly tries to sabotage it (Kendall & Kendall, 1993).
Furthermore, the fact that education treats students as commodities is highly controversial, but it may drive the quality of schools, so it is still under discussion. The factory metaphor emphasizes the rationality of technology to enhance quantitative production (Graham, 2013;Raymond, 1993). The consumption metaphor treats students and parents as customers, responds to their voices, and wins their favor to make exchanges of value (Dagbovie-Mullins, 2011;Fischer, 2011). The media metaphor emphasizes the publicization of school quality through media vehicles (Örtenblad et al., 2016). The global brain metaphor emphasizes the innovation of big data management and public opinions while ignoring the educational needs of students in the school (Oswick & Grant, 2015).
When it comes to the relationship between organizational metaphors and school reform, scholars widely accept the viewpoint of Morgan (1986Morgan ( , 1997Morgan ( , 2006. Morgan emphasizes that the stimulus for change within organizational metaphors originates from criticism of existing practices and people's imaginative use of new metaphors to reflect their views (Morgan, 1993). Accordingly, it is necessary to explore the advantages and disadvantages of each metaphor, their interdependence, and their ability to improve on other metaphors; this will strengthen the development of school organization theory and the competence needed for utilizing comprehensive resources efficiently and bringing about change (Arnold & Crawford, 2014). Identifying untapped resources for school change (Lackney, 2005) and promoting the complementary relationship between organizational metaphors can stimulate successful changes in schools ( Van den Hoven & Litz, 2016).
While organizational metaphors contain comprehensive resources for school change, machine metaphors are focused on bureaucracy, which has long been considered as representing the pursuit of maximum efficiency. Bureaucracy is characterized by a clear division of labor, a hierarchy of authority, prescribed behavior, and specialized job training (Earle & Kruse, 1999), and it focuses on performance evaluation and top-down school change. In particular, the structural configuration in which there is a special division of labor with an emphasis on professional roles is known as the One Best System (Tyack, 1974). To date, even in the era of globalization, performance evaluation still represents a key task in school operation (Ball, 2006). It should be noted that school decentralization also requires bureaucracy to allocate the workforce to facilitate multiple leadership roles, enhancing steady progress during school change (Bush, 2019). In turn, this promotes school effectiveness (Fullan, 2016). Therefore, the use of multiple metaphors to explore the development of school organization theory should include a focus on the role of bureaucracy, as well as the complementary relationship between multiple metaphors, in achieving school change. By closely linking bureaucracy with the changing behaviors of educators, we can facilitate positive learning outcomes (Grissom et al., 2015).

Research Methodology
The study of this metaphor often uses a mixed research method, which is a research design that considers both quantitative and qualitative data. The researchers designed their questionnaire based on the metaphors summarized in the literature through the data of a questionnaire survey, sought to understand the metaphors used by more than 10% of the participants, and established the metaphors that generate change momentum synergy (Morgan & Zohar, 1998). Then they chose these metaphors and conducted qualitative interviews with the school's stakeholders to explore the meaning of metaphor and its positive and negative effects. Afterward, researchers identified complementary relationships between metaphors to explore the comprehensive resources of multiple metaphors that can synergy the momentum of change (Arnold & Crawford, 2014).
Based on the above discussion, the application of metaphor is an extension of qualitative research methods in which the subject identifies the concept that merges his or her own experiences, reflecting the subjective meaning through the external object (Brink, 1993). This process creates a new image of school organization designed to strengthen the interpretation of symbolized meaning (Inbar, 1996); this is followed by a process of meaning-sharing by metaphorical expressions, which ensures a new view of coherence and demand for metaphor while also verifying the knowledge of qualitative research to establish a well-grounded theory (Miller & Fredericks, 1988). Utilizing a conceptual framework based on Morgan and Zohar's (1998) organizational metaphors, Van den Hoven and Litz (2016) conducted qualitative research on university professors designed to evaluate their experience with a new program and its influence on change processes. Arnold and Crawford (2014) have also emphasized the value of conducting qualitative research to explore the use of metaphors for educational leadership. However, qualitative research into organizational metaphors and organizational change phenomena fails to provide any deep insights. Therefore, Morgan and Zohar (1998) state that it is increasingly important to study change processes in a quantitative manner, especially the effect of an incremental change strategy on overall organizational change. Therefore, research on the effect of organization metaphors on organizational change should be focused on the identification and quantification of the change in momentum. This study uses a mixed-method approach. The quantitative analysis focuses on the change in the momentum of individual metaphors. The qualitative case explores the effects of organizational metaphors on organizational change. Combining quantitative and qualitative results offers deeper insights into the complementary relationship between organizational metaphors and changes in momentum.

Conceptual Framework
This study's questionnaire used percentage to evaluate Taiwan's middle schools' reform energy of the 17 metaphors. This study used percentage to assess the change in momentum of each metaphor. Only those showing more than a 10% change in momentum were analyzed. This is attributed to the fact that, as stated by Morgan and Zohar's (1998) theory of school change, each metaphor must have a change in momentum above a certain level, whereas multiple metaphors must be used in a comprehensive manner before an incremental increase of change in momentum is achieved.
For the remaining metaphors, two or fewer pieces of advice were offered, showing a slightly weaker motivation. It adopted the specified metaphors to assess the role of leadership motivation in promoting school reform (Hernández-Amorós & Ruiz, 2018). The metaphors were all supplemented by comments in the form of responses to open-ended questions, which were then incorporated into the qualitative analysis. Then, the metaphor of quantity and energy that can be multiplied was interpreted to explore the rich and comprehensive resources and expand the kinetic energy of school reform (Christensen & Wagoner, 2015).
Due to the large number of metaphors discussed in the literature, to clarify the research design, this study only selected metaphors widely used in school change discussed in the literature as examples of the conceptual framework, as shown in Table 1.

Questionnaire Content
This study adopted a semi-closed and semi-open questionnaire survey method (Guo, 2012). The researcher designed the first draft of the questionnaire according to the literature, with the research direction and theory then discussed following this process. The multiple-choice questions addressed 17 metaphors to establish content validity: machine metaphor, brain metaphor, organism metaphor, political metaphor, chameleon metaphor, culture metaphor, self-transformation metaphor, cage metaphor, ugliness metaphor, neuroticism metaphor, community metaphor, consumption metaphor, media metaphor, global metaphor, factory metaphor, temple metaphor, and jungle metaphor. The design of the questionnaire sought to lead the respondents to write their views on each metaphor's opportunity to inspire change. Six specialists in education administration were included; 10 middle school members (principals, administrative staff, and teachers) also participated. The questionnaire was designed mainly with reference to the organization theory literature, which ensured its content validity. After the scholars' review, the questionnaire's practicality was enhanced. The Taiwanese scholars of education administration added and deleted the context of secondary school education reform in Taiwan. Meanwhile, the school members evaluated the degree to which the questionnaire was answerable. As is shown by the validity tests, this questionnaire considered the international progress made in both organizational theory and Taiwan's theoretical test in this regard, suggesting that it can be used as a general research instrument to establish expert validity. In addition, after the questionnaire was finalized, the reliability of the questionnaire was established by the method of retest reliability because the questionnaire was composed of multiple-choice questions (Guo, 2012). The middle schools selected by the researchers had 52 members, including the principal, administrative staff, and teachers who had two pretests of the questionnaire. After the first pretest, the questionnaire number of the respondents was marked, and a week later, the second pretest was conducted. After comparisons, more than 90% of the respondents had the same answers, demonstrating that the questionnaire has stability and reliability (Guo, 2012). In addition to questions soliciting the subject's basic data, the questionnaire contained 17 multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. The multiple-choice questions addressed 17 aforementioned metaphors. The participants were asked to select the metaphors that would match the image of their schools and to fill in meanings for those they selected. For the open-ended questions, the participants were asked to describe the characteristics of their schools and explain their meanings.

Interview
The researcher conducted in-depth interviews using the outline below. These interview questions were designed based on the multiple-choice items of the questionnaire for which metaphors accounted for more than 10% of the person-time of the respondents: 1. Which school change initiative have you been deeply involved in? Why? 2. What metaphors will you apply when participating in change initiatives? For example, machine metaphor, brain metaphor, organism metaphor, political metaphor, or community metaphor? 3. What positive influences do the uses of the above metaphor have on school change? 4. What negative influences do the uses of the above metaphor have on school change?

Survey Sample
This study focused on public and private middle schools in the Taipei Metro Area (Taipei City, New Taipei City and Keelung City), and the choice of participants included principals, administrative staff, and teachers. Random sampling was used to select participants from three strata. For the first stratum, stratified proportional random sampling work with other parties, the mutual confrontation builds were adopted. The schools were grouped according to type (public or private), and 15% of the schools were selected for the survey. Taipei City had 12 districts and 80 middle schools. Twelve schools were chosen, which was about 15% of the population that were keen to respond to educational change. Conceptually, each district had one school to represent. New Taipei City and Keelung City could also choose representative schools for educational change according to the percentage. For the second stratum, the schools were grouped according to size. For the third stratum, the participants were issued a questionnaire based on the category and size grouping of the schools; 409 valid questionnaires were recovered from 28 schools in the Taipei Metro Area.

Interview Samples
To understand how metaphors affect a school's organizational development, the researcher selected 41 participants from the 409 questionnaire respondents. The participants were those whose qualitative responses provided insights into the effect of organizational metaphors on organizational change. The 36 principals, administrative staff, and teachers provided written informed consent for their participation. In addition, the principals who agreed to be interviewed recommended five parents who were enthusiastically involved in school affairs for interview. Although the selected participants had different roles to play, they all agreed that their schools require changes, and they had taken actions to bring about those changes.
First, the researcher interviewed nine principals (six men and three women). Facing the impact of the low birthrate in Taiwan, they had been deeply involved in developing countermeasures. As the number of potential students decreases, a series of impacts results, such as parents having a wider choice of schools, principals needing to present better teaching performances or administrative innovations to attract students, and the danger that teachers might be transferred to other schools due to the low enrollment rate. These impacts cause a feeling of insecurity among teachers and affect their teaching quality, which might lead to both oncampus and off-campus tension, thereby affecting the principals' influential power to support new national curriculum guidelines, encouraging teachers to focus on curriculum development, mediating frictions between administrative staff and teachers, and fighting for resources. Their aim was to create change energy.
Second, the researcher interviewed 11 administrative staff (seven men and four women). Four affair divisions (Educational Affairs Office, Student Affairs Office, General Affairs Office, and Counseling Office) are set under the supervision of the principal in middle schools in Taiwan, each playing a different role. As stakeholders, the administrative staff may have a conflict of interest with the principal and may not always accede to the principal's wishes. The administrative staff were capable of creative thinking and responding effectively to the fast-changing school environment. When implementing changes, they utilized limited resources to help students maximize their learning achievements. They were also willing to invest time and effort to communicate with administrative offices, teachers, and parents to resolve their respective differences and become driving forces in promoting change.
In addition, the researcher also interviewed 16 teachers (six men and ten women). The teachers encouraged their students to embrace their individual attributes and diverse development, to respect peers with different opinions, and to continue to communicate with administrative staff, building mutual understanding and consideration. They often shared with colleagues their experiences and insights regarding professional and curriculum developments, as well as how to access school resources. Through healthy interactions, they were able to build rapport and shared values with colleagues, to improve levels of mutual trust, to formulate strategies for change, and to drive the progress of their schools.
Finally, the researcher interviewed five parents, including three fathers and two mothers. These parents were willing to provide resources through their networks for school change, purchase equipment, and support changes to the development of the curriculum. They were all professionals and willing to contribute their respective expertise to assist their children's schools.

Analyses
The study of metaphors emphasizes the method of equal emphasis on quality, which can be used as the basis for further study of metaphor screening. In this study, 17 school organization metaphors were designed and presented in the form of multiple choice. As the meaning of the metaphor comes from the cognition of stakeholders, open questions were designed to understand the motivation of respondents for the use of a metaphor and the degree to which their cognition of metaphor responds to the significance of literature. The greater the number of metaphors that can be used, the greater the kinetic energy of change it will bring. In this study, the quantity and energy of the metaphor were tested by percentages, and the motivation of reform was judged by the answers to open questions. At least three items were filled in, and the metaphorical interpretation should respond to the conceptual framework before the qualitative analysis was included.
This study's questionnaire used percentage to evaluate the reform energy of the 17 metaphors. The questionnaire was distributed among 409 respondents, and two or more options could be chosen for each item. The total number of responses was 596, and all 17 metaphors received responses. This study used percentage to assess the change in momentum of each metaphor. Only those showing more than a 10% change in momentum were analyzed. Consequently, only the machine metaphor, organism metaphor, brain metaphor, politics metaphor, and community metaphor with a greater than 10% change in momentum were selected for further analysis. Also, all the open interpretations for the five metaphors have more than three points and conform to the conceptual framework. They were used with strong motivation. The five metaphors were all supplemented by comments in the form of responses to open-ended questions, which were then incorporated into the qualitative analysis.
The researcher interviewed school principals, administrative staff, teachers, and parents about various situations related to school changes, focusing on those metaphors with more than a 10% change in momentum. The researcher conducted further exploration of the underlying meanings of the metaphors by asking more questions and carrying out indepth analysis to understand the positive and negative influences of each metaphor. The researcher then conducted an inductive analysis for those that received the same responses from participants in different positions and used integrated approaches to establish a synergic relationship, understand the synergistic effects of their change energies, and explore school organization theories. Moreover, only the stakeholders who had the same interpretation of the effects of organizational metaphors on organizational change were subjected to further analysis, to strengthen the trustworthiness of the data analysis.

Results
This research involved quantitative analysis and includes metaphors that were selected by more than 10% of the respondents. These people all have opportunities for metaphorical change. The metaphors were then incorporated into qualitative research, analyzed by topic classification, and discussed.

Quantitative Analysis
As Supplemental Appendix A shows, the 17 school organization metaphors were selected by participants a total of 596 times. These selections represented more than 10% of the total selections; they are shown in descending order, accompanied by the change in energy, as follows: machine metaphor (22.48%), brain metaphor (11.74%), organism metaphor (10.74%), politics metaphor (10.40%), and community metaphor (10.07%). It should be noted that this study did not discuss the findings of metaphors that represented less than 5% of the total selections. This study found that the machine metaphor played a prominent role in changes. In addition, the brain metaphor, organism metaphor, political metaphor, and community metaphor also possessed a substantial change in momentum, showing that they can be important for generating change.

Qualitative Analysis
This research examined quantitative research to discover metaphors that were selected by more than 10% of the people to facilitate the construction of the relationship between metaphors and make sure change is energized. Therefore, this study targeted five metaphors, including machine, organic, brain, political, and community; collected data through interviews; conducted a qualitative analysis; and explored the advantages and disadvantages of each metaphor. This process was needed by examining the number of people who put forward the advantages and disadvantages, classifying the metaphors by theme, and calculating the number of times each theme appears among the stakeholders, such as principals, administrative staff, teachers, and parents. Therefore, each theme that is sufficient to represent the phenomenon of the metaphor was applied to solve the problem, as Supplemental Appendix A shows.
As illustrated in Supplemental Appendix B, successful school reform requires that the parties concerned each understand the metaphors and that the principals, administrative staff, teachers, and parents show an increasingly convergent understanding of the cognitive meaning of reform under both the positive and negative influences of metaphors. This indicates that they can be taken as a reform assessment mechanism for the mutual understanding of metaphors. However, it is important to point out that parents support increased school participation. Therefore, to prevent parents from becoming a variable against school reform, at least one parent and one of the school members who share a similar understanding were included in the study. Table 2 presents the respondents' relevant background information and is described with a guarantee regarding the reliability of the research results in the presentation of the evidence. Parts of the in-depth interview data were selected as examples of the research results.
Machine metaphor. The machine metaphor emphasizes a clear division of labor, well-planned promotion, orderliness, and legal authority. Schools are official structures, and it is important to have stable and predictable processes. Each procedure is set up to meet the targeted deadlines, and departments both perform their specific tasks and divide the workload based on their departments. Each department takes ownership of its role and follows a rigorous set of rules. After discussions and unifications, decisions are made in a topdown manner by the hierarchical administrative levels. The instructions on how to execute the plans are then provided to allow a unified management of school affairs and to help increase efficiency and improve productivity. The goal is to be recognized as a good school. One principal said, School has daily routine work and follows standardized operating procedures. The smooth operation of school affairs depends on the talent-oriented employment. (H2U5) An administrative staff said, We have to carry out tasks step-by-step to increase efficiency, and it's important to have stable and predictable processes. (A4U7) When school members are required to repeat the tasks every day, there is no flexibility or creativity. Moreover, the repeated working cycles make the system rigid and inhumane. Any trivial matters must go through the official channels, and the weekly recurring tasks leave them feeling exhausted. When students' various needs arise at the same time, school members do not have the flexibility to look after these students due to the rigidity of the operational procedures imposed on them. As a result, parents become discontented with the school, while the school members' sense of purpose and meaning dwindles. One principal stated.
Layered avoidance of responsibility happened in some grey areas and buck-passing means that no one is willing to deal with official documents; it therefore has negative impacts on efficacy.
An administrative staff member said, People at the top of the hierarchy often deliver instructions without much compassion and tend to be arbitrary when dealing with issues. For example, to ensure students' safety during the school's anniversary celebration, the director of the Student Affairs Office did not allow new plans. It becomes a routine activity, rather than a meaningful education activity. (A2U2) Brain metaphor. The school is compared with a human brain. Each department in the school has its own function (neuron), but they are all closely connected. For the school to function as normal, the departments perform communications within the complicated network and make decisions based on selected information from the communications, thus boosting creativity and innovation. Information may seem similar, but its nature and manner of use are different. While departments are responsible for different tasks, the processes of brainstorming and exchange mean the information is also filtered and interpreted. Therefore, the brain metaphor emphasizes the close relationship among different departments or school members (neurons). School leaders also establish networks and relationships with school members to improve the functions of each department. One teacher stated, We rebuild close relationships with each other; establish our own self-determination mechanisms to respond to the situation and school's needs. (T2U11) One principal claimed, When changes occur, each department shows different responses (neuron) and switches the connected information to plan matters.
However, using a brain metaphor could also hinder highlevel thinking. School members rely too readily on inertia information when faced with complicated environments. When one department disrupts the assessment process, crises arise within these connected networks, influencing decisionmaking. Each office has its own tasks and minds its own business, and different offices are reluctant to support one another. Because of this lack of horizontal connection and willingness to collaborate and cooperate, a number of important problems remained unsolved. An administrative staff explained, Just like the hippocampus is responsible for memories and the amygdala controls emotions-each part of the brain has its own distinctive function, and the departments lack mutual assistance. (A8U9) A teacher said, For example, the Office of Academic Affairs is like the neuron controlling rational thinking, the Office of Student Affairs is like the neuron controlling motion, and the Office of Counselling is like the neuron controlling emotion. Due to irrelevancy and competition for the right to control, these offices are not willing to support each other. (T7R10) Organism metaphor. The school is viewed as a space where each individual and group intertwine, forming interdependent relationships. Schools seek a balance between individuals' goals and groups' goals, and respond to changes in the environment to improve their adaptability. Some species can create favorable conditions and offer insights into opportunities, as well as being able to find better opportunities for survival. Species compete and cooperate with each other to deal with environmental changes. When an organism metaphor can help a species to reach a balanced survival relationship, then its function will be more stable. A teacher clarified, Like each species seeks the meaning of its survival and only the fittest can survive, the survival environment for the shared species is clear. We have our own space for diversified innovation. (T1U10) An administrative staff member explained, At the same time, as a dynamic balance, we are interdependent on each other, mutually supplementing growth, providing checks and balances, and protecting each other. (A3U3) The organism metaphor encourages species to impose self-limitation and stay in their comfort zone. When species do not adapt to their environment, they face a crisis of elimination and abrupt changes can appear. The incompetent species look for a way to survive, carry out attacks irrationally like wild animals, bring catastrophes to the school organism, and destabilize the school's operations. Educators (species) are partial and do not allow others to invade their living circle. When some teachers fail to adapt to the environment and face elimination, another group of teachers will resist the elimination mechanism and destroy the organism's environment. Students' rights to learning are ignored easily. An administrative staff member noted, Because it's difficult to build an elimination mechanism, as bad money drives out good, abrupt changes can appear. It becomes difficult to restore balance. When a culture of collective degeneration takes shape, the rot spreads and damages the healthy constitution of the school. (A5U8) A parent explained, The school obeys the law of the jungle; parents with higher socioeconomic status are more valued in their suggestions for curriculum arrangements, and their children's academic performance is more prominent. This results in the eternal power of the strong. (P2R5) Political metaphor. The school is viewed as a battlefield for political gain. It is a place with distinct factions and its social relationship is filled with schemes, plots, calculations, fierce competition, and infighting. People try to deceive and outwit each other. Because the school members fight to protect their own interests, such as resources, funding, and materials, there are conflicts among them. They map out plots for personal gain and attempt to steal the stage. To protect their interests from being monopolized by a certain party, they emphasize the importance of negotiations, democratic decisions, and resource distribution to reestablish organizational goals. A principal noted, Politics unifies colleagues, maintains balance, promotes school affairs, and improve efficacy. (H3U6) A parent recounted, The teachers work with other parties; the mutual confrontation builds a platform for safe communications and allows the diverse groups' opportunities to exchange their thoughts and explore the best strategies for mutual supplementary growth and stimulation. (P1R4) The employment of a political metaphor can also cover up hidden agendas behind the decision-making processes. People conceal their personal agendas, gang up together, and play dirty, insincere, under-the-table games. They ignore students' rights and make distorted decisions as if they were in a different position with different thoughts. Their dishonesty destroys mutual trust, thus undermining their school's development. An administrative staff argued, The teachers are not sincere and only play their own games, which causes the collapse of mutual trust. People become mendacious. (A1U1) A principal explained, The competition among several parties is monopolized by factions; they compete viciously, defame others, fight tooth and nail, and exhaust all possible means to snatch away any benefits. (H1U4) Community metaphor. School members are organized into teams to carry out different tasks. Each team has its own professional goals and is engaged in activities to complete specific tasks. They support and trust each other. They encourage professional learning through sharing and dialogue, contribute to the curriculum development both within and across domains, and thereby drive professional development. A teacher expounded, We build a foundation of trust and are willing to prepare lessons, research and develop teaching materials, and explore teaching methods together, enhancing professional development and inspiring self-motivation. (T4R7) Another teacher explained, We have friendly relationships. When we face issues, feeling frustrated and low, the emotional bond between us helps us focus on exchange and sharing. The free exchange within the group helps ease feelings of loneliness we are a community of life. (T3U12) However, the employment of a community metaphor also prompts individuals to consolidate their professional status. A community can easily become a group mainly focusing on benefits or resources, which subsequently creates frictions between communities and schools. When people focus on self-interests or when the community operations become too demanding, the interactions among communities or teachers can become intense. When they are dedicated to exploring innovative teaching methods, they may give up their original good teaching strategy due to peer pressure. A teacher commented, Great consumption of time and energy occurred when we participated in community operations. Sometimes bad information circulated in the community. (T5R8) A teacher stated, People have their own professional practice, competition happens among clans. This is inefficient. As a result, I feel disappointed and become unwilling to invest any effort into students' learning development. (T6R9)

Discussion
This research focused on the application of metaphors to school reform. Schools can use metaphors to face challenges such as the impact of a low birthrate, parents' demands to improve students' academic achievement and performance, and national education reforms emphasizing the development of characteristic courses and experimental programs. The application of metaphors can strengthen the literacyoriented professional growth and reform context of teaching innovation.
Based on the literature discussion, this research selects 17 aforementioned metaphors conducive to school reform for quantitative research. Through quantitative analysis and personal enlightenment, the machine, organism, brain, political, and community metaphors have synergistic effects for changing momentum. Later, through qualitative research, the advantages and disadvantages of the five metaphors were analyzed and summarized as themes. Based on this, through the discussion of the complementary relationship between metaphors, this study explored their comprehensive resources to understand their contribution to school reform. Morgan (1986Morgan ( , 1997Morgan ( , 2006 advocates that educators should be critical of organizational metaphors, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of metaphors for change; they should identify diverse and comprehensive resources by exploring the complementary relationship between metaphoric meaning to ensure both the smooth implementation of school change and improve students' learning achievements. The results of this study show that school leaders using a set of generic competencies to explore the comprehensive resources of metaphors can generate synergistic momentum for school reform. The metaphors that can provide the greatest synergistic momentum for school change are machine metaphors, organism metaphors, brain metaphors, political metaphors, and community metaphors. Among these, the ideology of the bureaucracy of the machine metaphor can be regarded as the cornerstone of the development of organizational theory. It is necessary to explore the complementary relationship between these five metaphors, promote the development of organizational theory, and lead the school's members to undergo change in a steady, supportive manner. In addition, bureaucracy, which promotes the advantages of increased efficiency, labor division, smooth operation, and talent-oriented employment and which represents the core concept of organizational theory, is goal-oriented. It emphasizes a hierarchy of authority, a specialized division of labor, and standardized operation procedures (SOP), which ensures that the implementation of tasks is guided by rules, that school members play a professional role, and that school change can be continually implemented to improve students' learning achievements. Therefore, the principal, who is the main authority figure and plays the most important role in the school's organizational structure, is the driving force for changes in instructional leadership, prioritizes improvements in learning achievement, and adopts classroom-based teaching practices (Weiner & Burton, 2016). The principal should know how to select the right people for the right positions to ensure that each department's structure is focused on a professional layout and that the school members have the required expertise. Furthermore, the principal should also strengthen the performance of school members in task implementation while allowing department heads to undertake departmental leadership. This will both unite school members to conform to the principal's vision and expand the principal's instructional leadership momentum, which in turn both provides more support for teachers and students (Urick et al., 2018) and promotes teaching effectiveness and learning achievements.
However, a bureaucratic system produces the disadvantages of indifference, a layered avoidance of responsibility structure, difficulty in innovation, and an excessive focus on form. It lacks a mechanism to respond to external changes, such as low birthrate, globalization, and education trends regarding competence learning. Some of the required external changes result from social environmental changes; some are caused by the needs of national economic development; and some are required for education reform. Therefore, a response mechanism solely based on bureaucracy will inevitably compromise school change. In particular, a combination of departmentalism in bureaucracy and paranoid autonomy can both create distorted decisions (Vermeule, 2017) and become oriented to the conceptual penis. This is because when the departments are under horizontal and vertical division of work, the staff may display behaviors associated with development, information concealment, and deception in their communication due to authoritative hierarchy and sectionalism, as a result of the patriarchy arising from masculine hegemony (Linstead & Mar'echal, 2015). Therefore, to respond to this changing environment, it is necessary for school principals to use the advantages of the organism metaphor such as dynamic balance, interrelationship, diverse goals, and mutual growth. The advantages of the community metaphor include professional development, sharing and exchanging information, emotional bonding, and community of life, setting multiple goals, establishing a learning community with diverse educational tasks and practices, and providing adequate support (Philpott & Oates, 2017). Only by using these advantages can principals strengthen the achievement of school goals, stimulate departmental leadership, strengthen the professional operations of the learning community, promote the professional growth of teachers, and ensure that professional learning can meet the needs of multipurpose practices (Carpenter, 2017;Fredholm, 2017). Furthermore, the above measures taken by principals can also promote teachers' practical momentum for new tasks so as to achieve concrete results. This will alleviate parents' anxieties in the face of changing situations (R. Smith, 2016), reduce the impact of the low birthrate on student enrollment, and mitigate the threats to school survival. In short, bureaucracy, due to both its success in diverse professional learning communities and its strengthened adaptability to the changing environment, can improve parents' confidence and their acceptance of school management, meaning they will be willing to choose the school in question for their children.
School leaders should pay attention to how the use of community metaphors will produce the disadvantages of inefficient goal competition among clan structures; great consumption of time, energy, and technology; and the circulation of bad information, which must be excluded to strengthen school reform. Within the professional learning community, teachers often compete for benefits, which can distort community communication. For example, in the community of interdisciplinary elective courses, the discipline of interest will become the focus of competition for benefits. In the learning community of international education, the dominance of English teachers is likely to make teachers in other disciplines feel that they have lower status. Senior teachers, due to vanity, may even aggressively dominate the direction and content of professional learning despite their outdated knowledge, which may delay or distort the professional growth of other teachers. Therefore, the principal should strengthen mutual confrontation, promote the maintenance of balance, encourage mutual supplementary growth, and insist on the mutual stimulation to use of political metaphors to encourage stakeholders, including principals, administrative staff, teachers, and parents, to participate actively in the distribution of benefits, as well as to reflect on the suitability of multiple goals while gathering public opinion (Fredholm, 2017). This both establishes mutually acceptable goals (McGann, 2018) and promotes the legitimacy of subject matter related to school change (Filippakou, 2017). These measures, in turn, will reduce distribution-induced tensions among stakeholders. By enhancing political legitimacy, the measures will encourage teachers to step out of their comfort zones, strengthen group dynamics, inspire teachers' pursuit of innovative goals, and strengthen their professional growth in response to environmental changes.
Accordingly, school leaders can inspire the confluence of community metaphors and political metaphors (Silverman, 2012), use the advantages of community metaphors such as professional development, sharing and exchange, emotional bonds, and community of life to support teachers in overcoming challenges regarding their professional growth, and raise the awareness of stakeholders about the irreplaceability of intellectual capital. This will ensure that they can act with professionalism (Karabay, 2016), which, in turn, will ensure that their professional development is not distorted by disputes over the distribution of benefits. In the meantime, school leaders may use the advantages of political metaphors such as mutual confrontation, maintenance of balance, mutual supplementary growth, and mutual stimulation to encourage effective negotiations between stakeholders regarding the distribution of benefits, introducing intellectual capital to guide negotiation. Use emerging professions as the basis for arbitration will strengthen the political legitimacy of educational decision-making and establish the professional status of learning communities. This will help to train specialized professionals who meet the new needs of the organization while also assisting school leaders in selecting teachers with special professional expertise from the learning communities and placing them in appropriate positions within the bureaucracy. This will ensure that the bureaucracy has the ability to respond successfully to environmental changes (Scribner et al., 2002).
In the meantime, school leaders in the bureaucracy should strengthen the confluence of community metaphors and politics metaphors from a dialectical perspective while also rebuilding school organization theory, strengthening the advantages of the organism metaphor such as dynamic balance, interdependence, diversified innovation, mutual supplementary growth, adapting to environmental changes, and repositioning the roles of departments. On the contrary, when facing new disciplinary needs, the school's organizational structure may lack the relevant functions. When the department fails to meet the needs of environmental change, a person from the department or the department itself will delay the smooth operation of the entire school, hinder school change, and inhibit school progress. In such cases, school leaders should draw on the advantages of brain metaphors such as situation-based response, close relationships, the extensive collection of ideas to strengthen the communication networks that stimulate mutual feedback in the bureaucracy, urge the development of relationships, and respond to the demand for change (Weick, 1995).
In particular, school leaders should use these brain metaphor advantages to select top professionals with outstanding performance records (Fantuzzo, 2015) and place them in leadership positions within the organizational structure. This will highlight the functional value of the division of labor in the bureaucracy, which, in turn, will motivate top professionals to lead other members of the department, thereby establishing a positive feedback cycle and promoting members to develop professional leadership in response to environmental changes. Accordingly, the school organization, as a community network, can provide a huge amount of support (Parisi et al., 2017)

Recommendations for Policy and Practice
In terms of recommendations for educational policy, the government or school leaders can use the bureaucracy theory as the base and emphasize the division of labor and establishment of rules so that people can focus on their profession and have rules to follow to strengthen the organizational efficiency of the school, build a foundation for the organizational reform of the school, connect the metaphor with strong quantity and energy, and strengthen policy planning, policy formulation, and policy implementation.
In terms of education policy planning, leaders should use the machine metaphor, employ specialized personnel, promote the SOP, lead the education decision-making processes, use the organism metaphor to respond to environmental changes, use the brain metaphor and community metaphor to promote the Department's human quality, and make good use of professionals of decisions.
In terms of the formulation of education policy, leaders should use the organism metaphor to invite parents and representatives of enterprises to express their opinions through holding public hearings and invite stakeholders to participate in public hearings to stimulate their voices for self-interest and be aware of the problems of profit distribution through the politics metaphor, use self-control mechanisms of the brain metaphor to promote organizational learning to avoid excessive expansion and strengthen consultation, and avoid the resistance of stakeholders to reform.
In terms of education policy implementation, leaders should use the machine metaphor to establish SOP to strengthen quality control. They should use the community metaphor to promote professional development by knowledge sharing and use the brain metaphor to build a huge organizational network to enlarge the support of policy implementation.

Conclusion and Implications
Facing the impact of low birthrate on schools, parents' requirements for higher education performance, and the context of national education reform emphasizing characteristic curriculum development, teacher professional development, and teaching innovation for school leaders, the use of bureaucracy as the cornerstone for school development strategies can strengthen the exploration of the complementary relationship between machine metaphors, organism metaphors, brain metaphors, political metaphors, and community metaphors while also helping to perceive and expand comprehensive resources for school change.
In the face of national education reforms and in response to the impact of the low birthrate, leaders motivate teachers to develop characteristic courses, strengthen the efficiency of curriculum development, set up curriculum promotion groups, and establish SOPs. This sequence includes the first draft of the course proposed by the subject domain, a preliminary review by the group, a review by the curriculum review committee, a second review by experts, and a final review by the curriculum development committee as a mechanism to ensure the quality of the curriculum and to highlight the characteristics of the curriculum. Therefore, the comprehensive resources are stable regulation and control of the SOP, legitimate goals for democratic participation in decision-making, adaptability to environmental changes, development of professional learning and dialogue, identification and promotion of top professionals, and significant levels of support from the school community network. These can develop the organizational theory, stimulate the instructional leadership, and promote the synergy of momentum for school change. All these benefits jointly extend school effectiveness, while also meeting the learning needs of all students.
Moreover, in the context of teacher professional development and teaching innovation, school leaders adopt the bureaucracy of the machine metaphor as the core mechanism constructed by the Grand Theory. It promotes both the efficient operations of professional communities and self-determination through the process of critical reflection. It also encourages the reasonable distribution of resources and professional development to create a confluence effect. In other words, people actively participate in profit sharing to enhance the legitimacy of professional development direction. The outcome of the professional learning community is used to persuade stakeholders to support profit sharing for specific professional development plans, which will bring public recognition and allow the majority of school members to have opportunities to further their professional growth. Organizational theory considers the individual, social, and professional elements of professional personality. The promotion of appropriate labor division, based on professions in SOPs, as well as the flexible adjustment of the standard operating procedures when facing a variety of environmental requirements, can improve brain function and organism vitality across affair offices. Through community strength, schools can enhance their adaptability and innovation, which, in turn, will expand student achievement and construct an orthodox theory of school organization.
However, the rich metaphors that accompany the management of school education are more complicated than school members imagine (Lynch & Fisher-Ari, 2018). Changes stimulated by bureaucracy and the ideology of middle class (Blanke, 1993) can easily entrench school systems with educational inequality. Students with high socioeconomic backgrounds, racial superiority, and specific gender qualities have certain advantages, leaving others at a disadvantage. As a result, school organization theory replicates the strained circumstances from social stratification, excluding metaphors related to social, racial, and gender inequality. Frequently, schools face market competition and parents' requirements for higher education performance. Leaders adopt merit theory to encourage teachers to catch up with the teaching progress, to save more time, and to increase students' chances of repeated practice. This encourages competitive students to enter prestigious high schools, which will help win parental recognition and affirmation of the school. However, when teachers keep up with the teaching progress, it is easy for them to ignore students with disadvantaged cultural capital. When students fail to keep up with the classes' progress, they will give up learning because of constant frustration, which will result in unequal in education. We must therefore question mainstream organizational theory and its concepts, raise self-awareness of ideology among leaders and teachers, and take action to improve equality among diverse groups. Metaphors can exhibit sincerity and create hope while also promoting the strange attractors of orthodox organizational theory. This will create positive butterfly effects that generate a change in momentum regarding the infinite possibilities and accumulated unpredictable forces that can influence progression. Encouraging bureaucracy to incorporate care into its innovation can reduce authority bias and encourage social justice (O'Brien, 2010). The Grand Theory of school organization should seek to reduce social, racial, and gender prejudice, as well as the discrimination that often arises because of these factors, providing intensive services to minorities to help them fulfill their ambitions (Schoenborn et al., 2016). This will prevent the anti-education force of social class from being replicated in organizations and help the theory's status become more mainstream (Anderson & Grinberg, 1998).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.


FACTORS OF LANGUAGE SHIFT IN SUMBAWANESE AT SOUTH ANJANI 1: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDY

, Abstrak: This study was aimed at finding out the language dominance and language shift factors that influence the shift from Sumbawanese to Indonesian and Sasak. The Sumbawanese refers to Taliwang dialect which is the native language of the Sumbawa community at South Anjani 1. The study was conducted in South Anjani 1, East Lombok. The subjects and informants of the study were teenagers, the parents, and the chief of the village. The subjects of study were teenagers so that it be worthwhile to predict the future of the vernacular. The study used qualitative research method in collecting and analyzing the data. The instruments of data collection were observation, interview, and recording. After collecting the data, it was analyzed by the following stages, transcription, identification, and classification. The findings show that the dominant language used by teenagers in South Anjani 1 is Indonesian. This appears to the affection of language shift of their native language, Sumbawanese. The language shift is caused by some factors, social, economic, political, demographic, attitudes and values, family, and education factors.

INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is multilingual nation. It shows that there are various languages and ethnic group. The data obtained from kemendikbud.go.id (2018), 652 vernaculars have been verified from 1991 to 2017. The more languages that owned the more chances to use various language in such society. Consequently, when people begin to use less of their mother tongue and more of other languages, they are deemed as having shifted from their language (Risnawati, 2019). Weinreich (1968) as cited by Risnawati (2019), defined language shift as the change from the habitual use of one language to another. The study of language shift, according to Fishman (1964), is concerned with the relationship between the change and stability in the habitual language use of the population and the different language contact with each other involved psychological, social, or cultural processes. Language shift that occurs in the community gradually becomes a habit for every generation that causes language loss. Retnawati's research (2018) showed that language shift as a result of multilingualism setting in Indonesia contributed to language loss occurrence. When language shift occurs continuously without awareness to keep using the native language properly and correctly, the native language can lose.
One of languages that has shifted is Sumbawanese in South Anjani 1 which shifted from Sumbawanese to Indonesian and Sasaknese. Moreover, this study finds out the phenomenon in detail which analyzed the most frequently used language among Sumbawanese, Indonesian, and Sasaknese. Then, the study analyzed the factors of people, especially the teenagers, in shifting the Sumbawanese, particularly Taliwang dialect, to Indonesian and Sasaknese on such domains in social interacting. Language dominance can be measured through language use (Treffers-Daller, 2019). It refers to how frequently bilinguals use their languages and how these are distributed across domains such as family, job, and school (Treffers-Daller, 2019). The measurement is known as an indirect measurement which measures variability through experience-based exposure to both languages in the input to bilingual children as well as children's own output. Moreover Language shifts occur because community-specific languages turn to other languages and most language shifts occur because they are included from factors that affect the language shift. Holmes (2013) classified the factors influencing language shift to be 7 factors. Firstly, social factors provide someone with language exposure. When the society using the majority language, the minority group will get pressure to follow the language itself. Nonetheless, the group member occasionally did not realize the advantages of maintaining the native language or they do not know their language will be disappear. Consequently, the minority language will be shifted unless the people there active to maintain the ethnic language. Secondly, economic factors refer to desire to have a stable economy, for example looking for good job. There is an assumption that mastering more than one language supports getting a good job. Then, the shift from the native language to the target language is perceived as more current, practical, or providing access to better social mobility and economic prospects (Kandler, Unger, & Steele, 2010). Thirdly, political factors refer to the law applied in such a place and the law must be obeyed. For example, Hebrew in Israel is maintained by apply a law related to the language. So that, the Arabic is shifted in Israel. Fourthly, demographic factors are related to either the area is urban or rural area. The urban area faces more languages than that in rural area. In addition, marriage also give a huge impact on the use of language in the family because spouse must decide to use a language that understood by each other. It drives the shift for their own native language. Fifthly, attitude and value factors which related to someone's attitude and value toward the language. As defined by crystal, language attitudes as the feelings people have about their own language or the languages of others. When the lower community language is highly valued, the shift of language chance will decrease. Hence, the pride in every people give a big impact on the use of their language.
Furthermore, family is one of the domains where language is firstly used. The children in a family are forced to learn a language that is considered prestigious from an early age. Besides, education or school is a formal place where children study their national language. And also, teachers emphasize that Indonesian is the national language or united language. It causes a child to communicate with other people in the school area by Indonesian. This case emerges language shift from their vernaculars to Indonesian. In addition, parents are reluctant to teach vernacular despite Indonesian in order to make their children's studies easier through teacher explanation in Indonesian. Hence, children are unable to master their vernaculars or at least understand their vernaculars.
By knowing the factors of language shift, we can maintain the native language in order to prevent language loss as long as the old generation who is able in speaking Sumbawanese still living. Besides that, rarely has research about Sumbawanese, especially Taliwang dialect in Lombok, especially in South Anjani 1 village been carried out. Thus, this study has two research questions; firstly, what is the dominant language used by South Anjani 1 inhabitants in daily interaction? Secondly, what factors may influence language shift in Sumbawanese at South Anjani 1 village?. Therefore, the study aims to find out the dominant language used by the population in South Anjani 1 village in daily interaction as the effect of language shift occurrence. This objective is based on Treffers-Daller's (2019) theory which saw language dominance from how frequently bilinguals use their languages depends on the domain and measure it indirectly through the language use itself. Besides, this study is to find out the factors of language shift in Taliwang dialect at South Anjani 1 based on Janet Holmes' theory related to language shift factors; social factor, economic factor, political factor, demography factor, marriage factor, and value and attitude.
Eventually, the study is expected to be a reference for further research in examining the Sumbawanese that has been assimilated with Sasaknese and also Indonesian and be useful for readers to realize the importance of language to be maintained especially in Sumbawanese at South Anjani 1. Additionally, teachers who teach language change can use this research as a resource in supporting teaching activity. And also, the students who learn language change can expand their knowledge about the factors of language shift, especially for Sumbawanese at South Anjani 1.

METHODS
The data of this study was qualitative. It was collected and analyzed qualitatively. This study involved subjects and informants. Subjects of the study were South Anjani 1 teenagers who live at South Anjani 1 and they are both bilinguals and multilinguals. In addition, the mother and/or father of the kids have to be native speaker of Sumbawanese. Information about the culture, customs, and living system in this study area were obtained from informants who are native inhabitant of South Anjani 1 village.
This study was conducted at South Anjani 1 village, Suralaga subdistrict, East Lombok regency. The data in the study was collected by observation, interview and recording. Observation was purposed to obtain the data about language shift in South Anjani 1 village. Recording and note taking were used to get detail conversations. Secondly, the technique of this research was interview to confirm directly the perspective of subjects and informants in South Anjani 1 related to the reason of shifting the language. The sort of questionnaire in this technique was semi structured question which allows the interviewer and participants to adjust the question and answer related to answer the research questions. And the last technique was recording which recorded the utterance of subjects of study when they were speaking. Moreover, those techniques were supported by instumens as follow; note taking, interview questions, and audio recorder.
The data in this research were analyzed through three stages i.e; transcription, identification, and classification. The data were transcribed using standard transcription method. Therefore, the data obtained through recording the interview and conversation of subject were transcribed into written form. After that, the data were identified in which kind of factor based on language shift theory by Janet Holmes which stated that language shift is caused by economic, social and political factor, demographic factor, and values and attitudes factor, family, and education factors. Eventually, the last step was classifying the data into a group which had same factors. Those factors is based on previous mentioned theories from experts. So that, this study distinguished and made conclusion about language dominance and the factors influencing language shift in Sumbawanese at South Anjani 1.

Language Dominance of Teenagers at South Anjani 1
Language dominance measures the use of language of bilinguals, in order to know their language frequently used (Traffers-Daller, 2019). It measures the dominant language based on how often the language is used and spread among social domains (Traffers-Daller, 2019). In identifying the language, this study considered sentence category, word category, and clause category. Thus, there are three languages used by inhabitants of the study, those are Sumbawanese, Indonesian, and Sasaknese. From the whole conversation, the most language used is Indonesian which consists of 73 times of utterances, and then Sasaknese is in the second position which is 18 times utterances. While the Sumbawanese which is their mother tongue is the least frequency of utterances, even no utterances at all. Those indicated that the use of Indonesian leads almost the whole conversation of the teenagers. In conclusion, the dominant language is the most used language in varied domains. In this study, the dominant language of the subjects of the study who are the teenagers of South Anjani 1 is Indonesian which is different from their parents' language, Sumbawanese. They use Indonesian in almost every activity in their society.

Factors of language shift in Sumbawanese at South Anjani 1 Village
Based on the research result, the language shift phenomena is caused by some factors which the categories are adapted from Holmes (2013). Those are a factor of social, economic, politic, demographic, attitude and value, family, and education.

Social Factors
According to Holmes (2013), people use language based on the language that most people use which is called majority language. In South Anjani 1, mostly young people use Indonesian when they are interacting with each other. Therefore, the majority language among teenagers is Indonesian. Based on the observation, almost all teenagers used Indonesian when they were communicating while playing a game, working, and also after learning Koran. And also, the subject of study tend to mix the Indonesian with Sasaknese. As transcription below: From those data, nobody uses Sumbawanese in interacting when they are in the playground domain. This situation forces people to keep using the majority language to make their communication easier and also to enlarge their networking.
In conclusion, as stated by Holmes (2013), social factors contributes on the language shift at South Anjani 1. It shifts from Sumbawanese to Indonesian and Sasaknese. Therefore, there are no longer teenagers used Sumbawanese in their activity in South Anjani 1.

Economic Factors
Economic factor refers to the job that is needed to increase the level of the economy. It aims to achieve stable economy (Holmes, 2013). Besides, the economy is also related to the economic activity such as, in the market where everybody can do a transaction. According to the interview with informants, inhabitants in South Anjani mostly use Indonesian, and second-most use Sasaknese when dealing on trading. But, in fact, the inhabitants mostly use Sasaknese. Meanwhile, Sumbawanese is rarely used in the transaction.
DATA Moreover, in the minimarkets in South Anjani 1, the subject of study uses Indonesian to buy snacks and other foods and beverages. It makes the transaction easier to the seller and buyer. Furthermore, indirectly mentioned by Holmes (2013), mastering more than one language supports in reaching stable economy. In a nutshell, economic activity also encourages the language shift where the inhabitants in South Anjani 1 is rather to use Indonesian or Sasaknese that Sumbawanese.

Political factors
The inhabitants of South Anjani 1 use Indonesian because Indonesian is a united language of Indonesia. This perspective emerges because of the status of Indonesian as the national language. Holmes (2013) explained that the law that applied in certain place give a big impact on the language use. In Indonesia, the status of Indonesian as national language provide the people who have different society to communicate. So that, in a multilingual society, they choose to use language that is understood by many people which is Indonesian.
Data 98 Q: Beka se keang basa Indonesia kek Adit? Why do you use Indonesian to Adit?

Because of unity language
Contrary, the use of vernacular, in this study is Sumbawanese, in minority society cannot be maintain since the users of the language decrease. Hence, the use of Sumbawanese is shifted to Indonesian and Sasaknese because of the system in the society. The systems is related to the political system and political rules. So that, political factors help the occurance of language shift in South Anjani 1.

Demographic factor
Anjani is a village where is passed by the main highway, particularly South Anjani 1 is near to the downtown where a mosque, village government office, and traditional market exist. It makes South Anjani 1 being an urban area that is exposed by both Sasaknese and Indonesian. Consequently, the native language, Sumbawanese, is shifted to those languages, Indonesian and Sasaknese.
According to Holmes (2013), people in the urban area face different languages in use and uncover from political power which gives impact on the mobilization of the area. Hence, they will meet varied people with a different language and thought, and stimulate them in mastering not only their native language but also other majority languages. So that, the habitants in South Anjani 1 who live in urban areas encounter a lot of speakers of Sasak dialects and Indonesian in their interaction. For example one of the teenagers who has lived in different places and exposed to different condition of the place. The subject was able to speak Sumbawanese when he was five years old.
From the data above, after migrating to Kotaraja, he stoped using Sumbawanese because the majority language there is Sasaknese. After that, he came to South Anjani 1 and use Indonesian because the number of habitants who use Sumbawanese is a little. And his peer friends are mostly using Indonesian.
Eventually, those demographic conditions drive villagers of South Anjani 1 to shift their mother tongue, Sumbawanese, into Indonesian and Sasaknese. This phenomenon gives evidence on the Holmes' theory which stated demography also contributing on the language shift phenomena.

Value and Attitude
In using the language, people have their feeling towards the language (Holmes, 2013). When the minority language is poorly valued, the language shift will early occur. It is because the people have pressure in using the language. Besides, the language status give an impact on using the language.
Based on the interview and observation, most teenagers in South Anjani 1 have a shame on using the Sumbawanese. The feeling gives a burden to the teenagers in using the language.
[…] Bahasa Rempung lucu. Kalo kita bicara sama temen kita yang ngerti bahasa sasak juga kayak biasa. Emang bahasa rempung aja lucu apalagi kalo kita ngomong di depen temen kita yang ndak mengerti bahasa rempung, diketawain kita. (K3, 2021) Besides that, Sumbawanese is a minority language that has few speakers. So that, they tend to avoid using Sumbawanese due to the loss of pride of the language and decreasing of the people who understand the language. Moreover, they shift the language to Indonesian in order to build a comfortable conversation and interaction. Therefore, the Sumbawanese is shifted to Indonesian.
Q: Lebih nyaman dan nyambung pake bahasa apa? A: Bahasa Indonesia. (K5, 2021) In conclusion, the attitude and value which is an ashamed feeling of Sumbawanese contribute to the language shift from Sumbawanese to Indonesian. It is equivalent to Holmes' (2013) theory that mentions attitude and value as one of the factors in language shift.

Family factors
Family is the first domain for children in acquiring language. According to Holmes (2001), cited in Risnawati (2019), the language of children is acquired by family consideration of the prestigious language. So, the parents in South Anjani 1 mostly use Indonesian in talking with their children at an early age.
Data 137 From the data above, the children follow what their parents communicated to them. Due to the first-taught language is Indonesian, the children grow with that language. And in their youth, they habitually speak in their first-taught language, Indonesian. Therefore, even though the parents are native speakers of Sumbawanese, but they decided to use Indonesian in family communication. Consequently, their children cannot use their mother tongue, Sumbawanese, and shift it into Indonesian.
To sum up, family is also contributing to the language shift from Sumbawanese to Indonesian in South Anjani 1. Exclusively, in the communication among parents and their children, the language that parents used when interacting would be followed by the children.

Educational factors
Education is related to the formal school that influences children in using language. Holmes (2001), cited in Risnawati (2019), mention that school tends to teach their national language to the pupils. Besides, they teach other subjects using the national language. In the study, the teachers forbid the students to use their vernacular.
Data 125 Kita waktu disekolah itu kan gini caranya ibu guru, "kalo didalam kelas itu tidak boleh menggunakan bahasa papuk balok ya, harus meggunakan bahasa Indonesia aja". (K2, 2021) In addition, in order to build a good relationship with friends and teachers in school, the children in South Anjani 1 have to use Indonesian and Sasaknese, the majority language that is understood by each other. Besides, due to achieving a higher score and good knowledge, the students should understand well what teachers explain. So that, the expectation of parents related to the school achievement drives them to use Indonesian in communicating with their children.
Data 24 Yo ku telek tode-tode yo legaan bahasa Indonesia. Sebenarne man aku, memprihatinkan. Karena apa, bahas ibu hin tu tinggalang sebenarne. Tapi ndek tu gawek belaq ne, tu telek masa depan tode, sekolahkan, paling ndk lah bhasa indonesia,… (P7, 2021) In a nutshell, education can hugely affect the language shift, from Sumbawanese to Indonesia and Sasaknese in South Anjani 1. The factor is not only focused on the interaction among students, teachers, and schoolmates but also support from family, especially parents, in order to make good communication and relation in school.

CONCLUSSIONS
There are 2 languages from 3 existed languages that are used by teenagers in South Anjani 1 which are Indonesian and Sasaknese. From those languages, Indonesian is the language dominant that is used in such domains as family, playground, and school. Meanwhile, the other language, Sumbawanese, is never used. Moreover, there are seven factors that influence the language shift in Sumbawanese at South Anjani 1. Those are social factors, economic factors, political factors, demographic factors, attitude and values factors, family factors, and educational factors. Eventually, those factors contribute to the language shift in South Anjani 1 which shifts the Sumbawanese to Indonesian and Sasaknese.


Game over: empower early career researchers to improve research quality

Processes of research evaluation are coming under increasing scrutiny, with detractors arguing that they have adverse effects on research quality, and that they support a research culture of competition to the detriment of collaboration. Based on three personal perspectives, we consider how current systems of research evaluation lock early career researchers and their supervisors into practices that are deemed necessary to progress academic careers within the current evaluation frameworks. We reflect on the main areas in which changes would enable better research practices to evolve; many align with open science. In particular, we suggest a systemic approach to research evaluation, taking into account its connections to the mechanisms of financial support for the institutions of research and higher education in the broader landscape. We call for more dialogue in the academic world around these issues and believe that empowering early career researchers is key to improving research quality.

Introduction
Research evaluation is increasingly a central topic of debates and reports in and around academia. 1 The process of evaluating researchers mainly on the basis of publication and citation metrics has come under fierce scrutiny because it is believed to be one of the main drivers of the documented adverse effects of the 'publish or perish' pressure on academic careers. These adverse effects include: • over-emphasis on the perceived novelty of research results and an underemphasis on the robustness and rigour of methods used, both in publications and in discussions, leading to favouring methodological pathways at higher risk of false positive outcomes 2 • individual behaviours seeking to maximize advantage in terms of personal evaluation metrics, ranging from distorting authorship credits, 3 slicing research outcomes rather than focusing on the bigger picture of relevance for the research field, 4 to even more ethically compromised practices such as data manipulation 5 Where do early career researchers (ECRs) stand on this issue? Many of us are strong supporters of open science, 8 but there is always a gap between consciousness and action. Whether we like it or not, with a few exceptions, we all know that metrics will not disappear overnight, but will still be on the table at the time we will be (and are) evaluated. The game may be rigged, but we all are forced to play.
Here, we share reflections from the perspective of a PhD candidate, a young academic and PhD supervisor and an ECR who recently switched from academic research to science advocacy.

The PhD candidate: 'locked-in' to the current system if I want to progress
A striking effect of the systems of evaluation based on publication and citation metrics is on the expectations of evaluation panels towards early career researchers when they are applying for postdoctoral positions or grants. We are still evaluated on the basis of our publications -not so much on the intrinsic quality of our work as on the quartile of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) 9 to which the journal where we publish belongs. Choosing to send articles to innovative field-related open access journals or platforms with interesting features such as open peer review and reasonable article processing charges (APCs) is something I would like to do more to actively support a change of culture. However, my strong perception is that there would be a substantial cost to these choices in future contexts where I am being evaluated; for example, when applying for postdoctoral funding.
The system forces us all to play the game to a certain extent -it favours the conventional choice of publishing in the most prestigious and cited journals in our subject area, which tend either to have a paywall or to offer open access publication only on payment of relatively high APCs, or via expensive transformative agreements. In a way, early career researchers are 'locked-in' when it comes to selecting venues for publication, as we are evaluated not so much on the content of our work (and the effectiveness of the associated peer-review process) as where we publish it. Embracing innovative open access journals/platforms and the many advantages they offer in terms of quality control and transparency of the scientific debate (pre-registration, open peer review, post-publication reviews), comes at a cost: that of facing a possible backlash from peer evaluation when applying for funding and new positions.
The young academic and PhD supervisor: no choice but to perpetuate the current system The researcher turned science advocate: change the system from within Anyone who looks up my publication record may think 'This is what is wrong with our current system'. The broader research community I was brought up in taught me early that publishing a lot and in high-impact factor journals was the only way to get ahead, and I was very proud that I managed to get my name into Science and Nature-branded journals and similar prestigious venues. Although I was part of research projects adept at getting articles accepted into high-impact journals, these same teams were also where I had the most vibrant discussions around how research culture needs to change. There was a broad awareness that the current system is not working well. However, many of us (including myself) felt that the best way to change it was to play by the rules until you became 'established enough' and then leverage that to help change the system from within. But the core question was, when is 'enough'? An often unspoken question was also, 'If the current system actually helps me succeed, will my interest to change it wane over time?' In parallel, we had lively discussions in our laboratory around how to improve day-to-day research processes, ranging from introducing GoPro cameras in our laboratory 10 and (perhaps quixotic) quests to help improve bio-nano research, 11 create bridges with cancer nanomedicine 12 and the development of a 'minimum information standard'. 13 This passion for improving the research process is what grew into a desire to improve the broader research culture, which is now a core part of my advocacy work for CESAER, including the modernization of research careers. 14 In my current advocacy work with non-academics, no one really cares about my Science or Nature articles, so this new perspective has reinforced for me that the obsession (which I also perpetuated) is largely a focus of the research community. But this 'containment' also gives more power to researchers to actually change the system.

How to move forward
Change is complex and will require the involvement of all levels and actors in academia. It is clear that those who evaluate researchers -most of whom climbed the publish or perish ladder successfully -may find it hard to reconsider the system in which they themselves excelled. It is therefore crucial to raise awareness of the fact that, while the system might indeed reward excellence (although this has been questioned 15 ), it comes at the cost of adverse effects. Striving for a more balanced system of rewards, one that supports collaborative practices (for example in terms of data sharing), transparency (for example in terms of peer review) and effective value and impact (through article content analysis and article-level rather than journal-level metrics) will reward actual as opposed to perceived excellence, without the above-described documented adverse effects.
Dialogue is also needed to resolve how we can shift from an evaluation system that relies on metrics and which allows researchers to be easily classified -towards an evaluation system that goes back to the roots of what defines the quality of the scientists' work: first, its content and its dissemination, at best, second. This change of culture appears to be in 'no researcher should have to martyr themselves to advance openness, given how valuable it is for science' 'play by the rules until you became "established enough" and then leverage that to help change the system from within' 'Striving for a more balanced system of rewards … will reward actual as opposed to perceived excellence' opposition to the broader trend of ranking (and related conditional financing) of research and higher education establishments to which the evaluation of researchers directly contributes, and which also needs a fundamental rethink. 16 Reform thus entails a more systemic consideration of the issue of research evaluation within the broader topic of how research and higher education are financed and supported by public authorities, especially related to ensuring sustainable funding levels. 17 A vital aspect of the debate, in our eyes, is that the evaluation system as it exists today does not empower researchers towards excellence. Instead, the present system, combined with decreasing public budgets allocated to research and thus ever-increasing competition for research grants, largely functions as a convenient 'controlling and sorting' tool. It fails to support ECRs in setting realistic goals that make them grow and evolve in their career.
Where is the place in today's system for enhancing the reliability and impact of research, 18 focusing for example on the robustness of datasets, creation of outreach material for policymakers, exploration of new avenues with no certainty of results, or constructive criticism of other scientists' approaches through peer review? Research is so much more than publishing articles. We should strive for an evaluation system that empowers researchers to act in all the -currently hidden -aspects of what constitutes the research ecosystem and contribute to its vitality and connections with society.
A positive note in this debate is that, unlike debates about the future of academic publishing, evaluation is much more in the hands of the academic community and its funders, with little commercial interest in maintaining the status quo. Of course, some governments fund universities based on rankings and metrics. However, we would claim that this is largely with the tacit approval (or even explicit encouragement) of the research community. Thus, provided that awareness of the problems is shared, and common solutions are agreed upon, we have the power to effect change without having to convince a broader ecosystem of external actors who might potentially have conflicting interests.
Which steps do we identify to implement this change of culture?
First, as a research community, among researchers across all career stages, we need to take a hard, realistic and honest look at the current reward system and its flaws, regardless of how well it may have served us. We believe that the core motivation of all of this should be to empower ECRs, as we are the actors whose futures are at stake, and as a community we feel a passionate need to improve research culture. Momentum is building, and to unleash it we should strive to empower ECRs through changes in research evaluation as perhaps the most important lever for improving research quality and culture.