Article Index

The Common Disaster and the Unexpected Education: Delta Flight 1141 and the Discourse of Aviation Safety

Authors
Ana C. Garner
Issue
August 1996
Description
News coverage of transportation disasters, such as the crash of Delta Flight 1141, reveal the disaster behavior of passengers, flight personnel and rescue workers. Within a mystery framework, the Flight 1141 discourse provides clues that readers can use to construct their own disaster behavior awareness. The media must expand their pedagogical role beyond natural and technological disasters and begin providing basic airplane safety behavior information.

The Community Recovery Process in the United States After a Major Natural Disaster

Authors
Claire B. Rubin
Issue
August 1985
Description
After studying first-hand how 14 U.S. communities recovered from a major natural disaster, an organizing framework recovery process was developed. That framework depicts the dynamic processes that contribute to an efficient local recovery, including the key elements of recovery and the relationships among those factors. The three key elements are personal leadership, ability to act, and knowledge of what to do.

The County Emergency Manager’s Role in Recovery

Authors
Jessica Jensen, Sarah Bundy, Brian Thomas and Mariama Yakubu
Issue
March 2014
Description
For decades emergency management has presented itself as an emerging profession devoted to coordinating activities related to mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. However, there has been little research to assess the extent to which it is, in fact, engaged in the coordination of activities in all of these areas. This study addresses this research gap by reporting the results of interviews with 54 county level emergency managers from eleven states regarding their role in disaster recovery. The results suggest that recovery is subordinate to other functional areas (e.g., preparedness, response, mitigation) within the work lives of the county emergency managers who participated in this research.

The Critic's Corner

Authors
Stephen R. Couch, J. Stephen Kroll-Smith, George O. Rogers
Issue
November 1992
Description
on The Real Disaster is Above Ground

The Critic's Corner

Authors
Russell R. Dynes
Issue
August 1983
Description
The critic\\'s corner is for brief, unrefereed statements about one or more aspects of disasters, and which have research implications. While some statements are solicited, we would prefer to have them volunteered. Preference will be given to provocative points of view and those which seem to challenge established ways of viewing, thinking and researching disaster phenomena. The point of view express is that of the author(s) and does not necessarily represent that of the editors, the journal or the research committee.

The Critic\\'s Corner

Authors
Roy Popkin
Issue
November 1984
Description
Chi Squares be Damned, Full Speed Ahead

The Critics Corner

Authors
Susan Lovegren Bosworth, Gary A. Kreps
Issue
August 1997
Description
Response to David F. Gillespie’s Review of Organizing, Role Enactment and Disaster: A Structural Theory by Gary A. Kreps and Susan Lovegren Bosworth.\r\nAuthor(s): Gary A. Kreps and Susan Lovegren Bosworth\r\nAbstract:\r\nWe would like to respond to David Gillespie’s review of our book in the spirit of creating hopefully a useful dialogue about our continuing research program.\r\nGillespie (1996, p. 249) points to “the tremendous amount of work necessary to developing theory.” We agree. We have detailed the ups and downs of theory building in our book, and Gillespie had outlined and critiqued some of those experiences. The methodological concerns we and he have raised are real, but the book was not intended as a tool “for learning about the limitations of quantitative analyses with qualitative data” (p. 249). Our book was designed as a treatise on a theory of role enactment and organizing during disasters.\r\nGillespie does not engage that theory. Instead, he says that the quality of our data and analyses are “fatal” to the theory and its usefulness (p. 247). Such a serious charge warrants careful review of the theory itself, its concepts, and our analyses. We would welcome comments about the problems with the structural code and taxonomy, or our conception and measurement of role enactment, or findings that are contrary to earlier research, or flaws in our reasoning, or findings that are contrary to earlier research, or flaws in our reasoning, or evidence that we have overstated (or understated) our case for empirically based principles of emergency management. Gillespie focuses on our analyses and two of our concepts (see General Issues) bur does not critique our work on its own terms. In this response we address the two general issues of weak data and analyses and offer five correctives on specific points raised by Gillespie.\r\n

THE CRITIC’S CORNER Consolidating the Role of the Fourth Estate in Disaster Work

Authors
A. J. W. Taylor
Issue
March 2006
Description
Reflections on the role and function of the press, radio, and television in times of public emergency, led to a consideration of the platform of critical independence occupied by the news media as the ‘Fourth Estate’ since its emergence as an important constitutional component of society in the late 18th century. The result showed that while the original raisond’être was to provide a reputable outlet for criticism of the policies and practices of the agencies of power in an emerging democratic state, vested interests have long compromised the noble purpose. The suggestion is that were the media to develop and consolidate its post-disaster work, it would improve the service it gives to the community and at the same time begin to reclaim the high standing it once had.

The Critic’s Corner Some Contemporary Issues in Disaster Management

Authors
Philip Buckle
Issue
March 2003
Description
In this paper I want to set out some of my views on a number of contemporary issues confronting disaster management but I do not have the space to address all the issues I think are critical nor do I doubt that there are numerous other issues that have not occurred to me. My assessment of some salient current issues derives from two perspectives; until recently I had responsibility for policy development and program management of disaster recovery services in Victoria, Australia and now I have added the perspective of the academic and researcher at Cranfield Disaster Management Center in England and formerly at RMIT University, Australia; research into social impacts and community responses is an activity that links these two positions. While I am generally pessimistic about how well disaster management can keep pace with a changing global risk environment I acknowledge that our thinking has changed significantly in the past decade. In particular we have been—or were—moving away from a hazard-centric and reductionist approach to disaster management to an approach that accepted the reality of social, cultural, political and economic drivers of hazard generation, risk and vulnerability.

The Critic’s Corner The Sociology of Disaster: Definitions, Research Questions, & Measurements Continuation of the Discussion in a Post-September 11 Environment

Authors
Henry Fischer
Issue
March 2003
Description
Disaster researchers come from varied fields of inquiry, practice diverse methodologies, yet we embrace some of the same, perhaps dysfunctional, academic traditions. This paper aims to stimulate diverse reactions. It continues the conversation from the 1998 edited Quarantelli book, What is a Disaster? Addressing questions such as “what is a disaster, what is the sociology of disaster, and what is it that disaster sociologists study? It will also begin to argue that it is indeed possible to measure disasters sociologically. An attempted disaster scale is offered. While it has long been argued that such a scale is untenable, it is argued herein that in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, an attempt to create such a scale is imperative. A conceptual, rather than a purely quantitative disaster scale is designed—one potentially useful to both researchers and practitioners. It differentiates between the disaster agent, or precipitating event, and the sociological focus, or social structure (and its adjustments). Scale, scope and (time) duration are applied to create ten disaster categories. The scale encompasses everyday emergencies, severe emergencies, six types of “disasters” (focusing on whether a community was partially or completely disrupted or distressed as well as focusing on community size), multiple simultaneous population center catastrophes, and societal annihilation—all forming a continuum ranging from disaster category 1 through 10.