Quick Response Disaster Research: Opportunities and Challenges for a New Funding Program

Greg Oulahen; Brennan Vogel; Chris Gouett-Hanna

doi:10.1007/s13753-020-00299-2

Volume 11 Issue 5

Dec. 2020

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Disaster Risk Science > 2020 > 11(5): 568-577

Greg Oulahen, Brennan Vogel, Chris Gouett-Hanna. Quick Response Disaster Research: Opportunities and Challenges for a New Funding Program[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2020, 11(5): 568-577. doi: 10.1007/s13753-020-00299-2

Citation:

Greg Oulahen, Brennan Vogel, Chris Gouett-Hanna. Quick Response Disaster Research: Opportunities and Challenges for a New Funding Program[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2020, 11(5): 568-577. doi: 10.1007/s13753-020-00299-2

Citation:

PDF

Quick Response Disaster Research: Opportunities and Challenges for a New Funding Program

doi: 10.1007/s13753-020-00299-2

1 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada;
2 Centre for Environment and Sustainability, Western University, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada

Available Online: 2021-04-26
Publish Date: 2020-12-01

Abstract

Abstract

Quick response research conducted by social scientists in the aftermath of a disaster can reveal important findings about hazards and their impacts on communities. Research to collect perishable data, or data that will change or be lost over time, immediately following disaster has been supported for decades by two programs in the United States, amassing a collection of quick response studies and an associated research culture. That culture is currently being challenged to better address power imbalances between researchers and disaster-affected participants. Until recently, Canada has not had a quick response grant program. In order to survey the state of knowledge and draw from it in helping to shape the new program in Canada, this article systematically analyzes the body of research created by the two US programs. The results reveal a wide-ranging literature: the studies are theoretically, conceptually, topically, and methodologically quite unique to one another. This diversity might appropriately reflect the nature of disasters, but the finding that many studies are not building on previous quick response research and other insights indicate opportunities for how a new grant program in Canada can contribute to growing a robust subdiscipline of disaster research.
- Canada,
- Disaster research,
- Hazards,
- Quick response,
- Social science

FullText(HTML)

References(29)

References

Adams-Hutcheson, G. 2018. Challenging the masculinist framing of disaster research. Gender, Place & Culture 25(1): 149–153.

Alexander, D. 1993. Natural disasters. London: UCL Press.

Bisaro, A., M. Roggero, and S. Villamayer-Tomas. 2018. Institutional analysis in climate change adaptation research: A systematic literature review. Ecological Economics 151: 34–43.

Brun, C. 2009. A geographer’s imperative? Research and action in the aftermath of disaster. The Geographical Journal 175(3): 196–207.

Burton, I., R.W. Kates, and G.F. White. 1978. The environment as hazard. New York: Oxford University Press.

Calgaro, E. 2015. If you are vulnerable and you know it raise your hand: Experiences from working in post-tsunami Thailand. Emotion, Space and Society 17: 45–54.

Gaillard, J.C. 2019. Disaster studies inside out. Disasters 43(S1): S7–S17.

Gaillard, J.C., and C. Gomez. 2015. Post-disaster research: Is there gold worth the rush? Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 7(1): Article 120.

Gaillard, J.C., and L. Peek. 2019. Disaster-zone research needs a code of conduct. Nature 575: 440–442.

Gomez, C., and D.E. Hart. 2013. Disaster gold rushes, sophisms and academic neocolonialism: Comments on “Earthquake disasters and resilience in the global North”. The Geographical Journal 179: 272–277.

Hewitt, K. 1983. The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. In Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology, ed. K. Hewitt, 3–32. Boston: Allen & Unwin Inc.

Hunt, M., C.M. Tansey, J. Anderson, R.F. Boulanger, L. Eckenwiler, J. Pringle, and L. Schwartz. 2016. The challenge of timely, responsive and rigorous ethics review of disaster research: Views of research ethics committee members. PLoS ONE 11(6): Article e0157142.

Jazeel, T. 2007. Awkward geographies, spatializing academic responsibility, encountering Sri Lanka. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28: 287–299.

Kelman, I., J.C. Gaillard, J. Lewis, and J. Mercer. 2016. Learning from the history of disaster vulnerability and resilience research and practice for climate change. Natural Hazards 82(S1): 129–143.

Kendra, J., and S. Gregory. 2015. Workshop on Deploying Post-Disaster Quick-Response Reconnaissance Teams: Methods, Strategies, and Needs. University of Delaware Disaster Research Center Final Project Report No. 60. Newark, DE: University of Delaware.

Kendra, J., and T. Wachtendorf. 2020. Disaster-zone research: No need for a customized code of conduct. Nature 578: Article 363.

Killian, L.M. 1956. An introduction to methodological problems of field studies in disasters. Disaster Study Number 8, Committee on Disaster Studies. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science – National Research Council.

Lavell, A., and A. Maskrey. 2014. The future of disaster risk management. Environmental Hazards 13(4): 267–280.

Mezinska, S., P. Kakuk, G. Mijaljica, M. Waligora, and D.P. O’Mathuna. 2016. Research in disaster settings: A systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines. BMC Medical Ethics 17: Article 62.

Michaels, S. 2003. Perishable information, enduring insights? Undertaking quick response research. In Beyond September 11th: An account of post-disaster research. Special Publication No. 39, 15–48. Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado.

Mukherji, A., N.E. Ganapati, and G. Rahill. 2014. Expecting the unexpected: Field research in post-disaster settings. Natural Hazards 73(2): 805–828.

NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Facing hazards and disasters: Understanding human dimensions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Phillips, B. 2002. Qualitative methods and disaster research. In Methods of disaster research, ed. R.A. Stallings, 194–211. Newark, DE: International Research Committee on Disasters.

Quarantelli, E.L. 1997. The Disaster Center field studies of organized behavior in the crisis time period of disasters. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 15(1): 47–69.

Scanlon, J., S. Alldred, A. Farrell, and A. Prawzick. 1985. Coping with the media in disasters: Some predictable problems. Public Administration Review 45: 123–133.

Schein, E.H. 1987. The clinical perspective in fieldwork. Qualitative Research Methods Series 5. Newbury Park: Sage.

Stallings, R.A. 2002. Methods of disaster research: Unique or not? In Methods of disaster research, ed. R.A. Stallings, 21–46. Newark, DE: International Research Committee on Disasters.

Stallings, R.A. 2007. Methodological issues. In Handbook of disaster research, ed. H. Rodriguez, E.L. Quarantelli, and R. Dynes, 55–82. New York: Springer.

Tierney, K. 2014. The social roots of risk: Producing disasters, promoting resilience. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Relative Articles

Supplements(0)

Cited By

Proportional views