Search results

Debates on the ethics of disaster and humanitarian studies concern unequal relations in research (among research institutes/researchers/stakeholders); the physical and psychological well-being of research participants and researchers; and the imposition of western methods, frameworks and epistemologies to the study of disasters. This paper focuses on everyday ethics: how they need to be translated throughout the everyday practices of research and how researchers can deal with the ethical dilemmas that inevitably occur.

This paper analyses the process of addressing ethics-related dilemmas from the first author's experiences researching disaster governance in high-intensity conflict settings, in particular drawing from 4 to 6 months of fieldwork in South Sudan and Afghanistan. In addition, ethical issues around remote research are discussed, drawing on the example of research conducted in Yemen. It is based on the personal notes taken by the first author and on the experience of both authors translating guidelines for research in remote and hazardous areas into research practices.

The paper concerns translating ethics into the everyday practices of research planning, implementation and communication. It argues for the importance of adaptive research processes with space for continuous reflection in order to advance disaster studies based on (1) equitable collaboration; (2) participatory methodologies wherever possible; (3) safety and security for all involved; (4) ethical approaches of remote research and (5) responsible and inclusive research communication and research-uptake. Openness about gaps and limitations of ethical standards, discussions with peers about dilemmas and reporting on these in research outcomes should be embedded in everyday ethics.

The paper contributes to discussions on everyday ethics, where ethics are integral to the epistemologies and everyday practices of research.

This article examines how farmers' assignment of responsibility for the disaster in late 2015 – early 2016 connects with reflexivity, habitus and local vulnerability.

This article uses semi-structured interviews with 28 disaster-affected households in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta to answer the question.

This article finds out that Vietnamese farmers actively accepted their responsibility for the disaster. In their explanation, they link their action with the root causes of vulnerability embedded in their socio-cultural traditions and collective identity.

This article makes a case for the importance of local culture and epistemologies in understanding disaster vulnerability and responsibility attribution.

This article is original in researching Vietnamese farmers' responsibility attribution, their aesthetic reflexivity, collective habitus and the socio-cultural root causes of disaster.

Mapping and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are widely used in disaster research and practice. While, in some cases, these practices incorporate methods inspired by critical cartography and critical GIS, they rarely engage with the theoretical discussions that animate those fields.

In this commentary, the author considers three such discussions, and draws out their relevance for disaster studies: the turn towards processual cartographies, political economy analysis of datafication and calls for theorising computing of and from the South.

The review highlights how these discussions can contribute to the work of scholars engaged in mapping for disaster risk management and research. First, it can counter the taken-for-granted nature of disaster-related maps, and encourage debate about how such maps are produced, used and circulated. Second, it can foster a reflexive attitude towards the urge to quantify and map disasters. Third, it can help to rethink the role of digital technologies with respect to ongoing conversations on the need to decolonise disaster studies.

The paper aims to familiarise disaster studies scholars with literature that has received relatively little attention in this field and, by doing so, contribute to a repoliticisation of disaster-related maps.

This study aims to yield significant insight into decentralized Disaster Governance (DG), explaining the passage from selecting actors and defining actions to determining outcomes in a decentralized process.

We adopt the systems thinking approach to investigate the reconstruction program after the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran. In-depth interviews are our main source of data that are carefully triangulated with findings from the review of documents and our direct observations.

We detected many shortcomings in this program, among which incomplete decentralization is highly prominent. In the Bam recovery program, tasks were delegated to varied actors based on their capacities without considering potential conflicts of interests and their unbalanced authority to serve their benefits. Meanwhile, the impact of the country's unstable political climate on restricting or liberating actors' influence on the recovery program was overlooked. These split relationships between DG components finally obstructed decentralization by intensifying conflicts of interest, which eventually compromised recovery objectives.

The results reveal the importance of adopting mechanisms to ensure monitoring systems' and governments' neutrality and limit any political influence over the outcomes.

DG concept is relatively new in disaster literature and despite its advancement in the last two decades, many studies still contribute to the epistemology of DG and its assessment methodology. However, the relationship between DG's components remains still obscure. This study tries to bridge this gap and make the concept more practical.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the meaning of social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk from which disaster risk policy can be analysed. In particular, the paper attempts to explore the implications of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk which is essential in explaining why disaster risk has different nuances and consequently policy responses.

A literature survey was used to explore social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk. The survey involved documentary searches from academic books, journal articles and disaster risk reports to serve as primary research data.

The analysis revealed that viewing and managing disasters through the lens of objectivism might not yield the desired results of minimising risk as it conceals the vulnerabilities to disaster risk. The objectivist perspective is therefore in itself considered inadequate for the study of disaster risk and that social constructivist assumptions are required in order to analyse disaster risk. Towards this end, social constructivism offers a discursive approach to disaster risk policy science; one that more optimally illuminates competing local perspectives.

An epistemological and ontological assessment of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk can assist greatly in understanding the discursive dimension of disaster risk through explanations of how and why disasters are framed the way they are framed and the implications of this on policy formulation and implementation.

The purpose of the paper is to challenge and address the limitations of the traditional system of knowledge production that is embedded in disaster and climate change research studies, and research studies in general. It argues that knowledge production in research processes conforms to colonialist thinking or west-inspired approaches. Such a system often results in the omission of crucial information due to a lack of participation, inclusion and diversity in knowledge production.

The paper proposes practices and recommendations to decolonise knowledge production in disaster and climate change research studies, and research studies in general. It provides a brief literature review on the concepts of decolonisation of knowledge and epistemological freedom, and its origins; assesses the need for knowledge decolonisation, emphasising on the integration of local knowledge from grassroots women-led initiatives in instances where disasters and crises are being investigated in vulnerable communities, especially in the Global South; and finally the paper proposes to decolonise knowledge production through activating co-learning and co-production. The practices have been developed from the work of relevant authors in the field and case studies.

Through a brief literature review on previous discourses on the topic of knowledge decolonisation and analysis of recent case studies on disaster and crisis management and community resilience, the paper finds that there exists a lack of pluralism and inclusion in epistemology which limits the pursuit to obtain the whole truth in the production of knowledge in research studies.

This paper adds to the discussion of decolonisation of knowledge in the field of disaster and climate change research studies, and research processes in general. It provides in-depth analyses of recent case studies of emerging community resilience and local practices that were crucial in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the variety of dichotomies related to disaster management with an objective to gain a better understanding of how and when dichotomous thinking can improve disaster management, especially in the discourse of disaster management politics.

This is a reflective essay that surveys dichotomies from multiple disciplines in respect to their potential contributions to disaster management.

Thinking about disaster management as a collection or series of dichotomies may help to better understand the sources, vulnerabilities, approaches, modes, methods and modes for related decision-making scenarios, particularly in the political realm.

The world is not so simply divided at every turn and dichotomous thinking may harbor biases, mask ignorance and/or offend postmodern notions of alterity.

Portraying disaster management through dichotomies is an efficient way for experts to convey information and structure decisions for political agendas.

This study presents a unique perspective of disaster management and how it may shape the thinking and decision making of disaster management politics.

This conversation presents the reflections from four inspirational early career disaster scholars on the opportunities and challenges associated with post-disaster research and disaster studies in general.

This paper is based on the conversations that took place on Disasters: Deconstructed Podcast livestream on the 15th September 2021.

The prominent themes in this conversation include representation, power imbalances and research extractivism and reciprocity.

The conversation contributes to the ongoing discussions around how research is conducted immediately following disasters.

The literature was reviewed to locate the most relevant social-psychology theories, factors, and instruments in order to measure New York State resident attitudes and social norms (SNs) concerning their intent to evacuate Hurricane Irene in the summer of 2011. The purpose of this paper is to develop a model which could be generalized to improve social policy determination for natural disaster preparation.

A post-positivist ideology was employed, quantitative data were collected from an online survey (nominal, binary, interval, and ratio), and inferential statistical techniques were applied to test theory-deductive hypotheses (Strang, 2013b). Since the questions for each hypothesized factor were customized using a pilot for this study, exploratory factor analysis were conducted to ensure the item validity and reliabilities were compared to a priori benchmarks (Gill et al., 2010). Correlation analysis along with logistic and multiple regression were applied to test the hypothesis at the 95 percent confidence level.

A statistically significant model was developed using correlation, stepwise regression, ordinary least squares regression, and logistic regression. Only two composite factors were needed to capture 55.4 percent of the variance for behavioral intent (BI) to evacuate. The model predicted 43.9 percent of the evacuation decisions, with 13.3 percent undecided, leaving 42.8 incorrectly classified), using logistic regression (n=401 surveyed participants).

Municipal planners can use this information by creating surveys and collecting BI indicators from citizens, during risk planning, in advance of a natural disaster. The concepts could also apply to man-made disasters. Planners can use the results from these surveys to predict the overall likelihood that residents with home equity (e.g. home owners) intend to leave when given a public evacuation order.

Once municipal planners know the indicators for personal attitudes (PAs) (in particular) and SNs, they could sort these by region, to identify areas where the PAs were too low. Then additional evacuation preparation efforts can be focussed on those regions. According to these findings, the emphasis must be focussed on a PA basis, describing the extreme negative impacts of previous disasters, rather than using credible spokespersons, to persuade individuals to leave.

A new model was created with a “near miss disaster” severity factor as an extension to the theory of reasoned action.