Future of EM - Social Science Hazard-Disaster Research - Oyo

7/27/2019 Future of EM - Social Science Hazard-Disaster Research - Oyo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/future-of-em-social-science-hazard-disaster-research-oyo 1/13

The Future of Emergency Management

Social Science Hazard/Disaster Research: Its Legacy for

Emergency Management Higher Education

Arthur Oyola-Yemaiel, Ph.D.

Director, Emergency Management Program

North Dakota State University

Jennifer Wilson, Ph.D.

Co-Director, Emergency Management Program

North Dakota State University

In this paper, we acknowledge the school of thought of the pioneers of social

science hazard/disaster research, synthesizing the forefathers’ activities as the foundation of an emerging discipline. This discipline is hazard/disaster research

that studies not only the implications of emergencies and disasters on society but also the structures that society has developed to mitigate against, prepare for,

respond to and recover from them, e.g. emergency management and homeland security. We also describe the evolutionary process of this budding discipline

from the founders of the field, i.e., Dynes and Quarantelli, their research legacy

and the institutional foundation that is permanently dedicated to host upcoming researchers and foster future research in this area, to the work of the first

generation’s disciples, ending with the Higher Education Program initiative or

the formation of degree programs (undergraduate and graduate) at universitiesto create human capital that will occupy positions in the emergency

management/homeland security national structure and that will continue

researching emergency management/homeland security topics.

The time has come to proclaim that hazard/disaster research is an emerging discipline.

The nascent discipline has been in existence for over 50 years through the research efforts of individual social science scholars, quietly informing the practice of emergency management. Yet

there is not widespread knowledge among the general scientific community, and emergency

management practitioners of the vast amount of work that the originators of the field of hazard/disaster research have conducted. Nor is it well-documented the implications of their

work, their legacy or the future their work will spawn. By highlighting the illustrious careers of

several individual hazard/disaster researchers, we will illustrate the evolution of the discipline

since its origin to the present. From this perspective we will then discuss strategies for its futureand its implications on emergency management professionalization via higher education.

Sociological Tradition

Perhaps foremost, E. L. Quarantelli is considered a founder of the field. Quarantellifocused his research and academic life on establishing, broadening and solidifying the field of

disaster research. For decades, Quarantelli has led the dialogue of a consensual definition of

disaster and what researchers should be studying (1982d, 1987, 1998). However, his works go



beyond the theoretical aspects of disaster and have opened the doors for others to investigate

issues in emergency management planning (1977a, 1982b, 1982a). In addition, he has researched

sociological aspects of disasters such as panic behavior and cross-cultural differences (1977b,1979a). He planted the seeds in the specifics and fundamentals of emergency and disasters

recovery themes, some of which are as contemporary today as in the 1970s (1979b, 1982c). But

Quarantelli did not stop here. He continued writing (on the forefront and futures) not only for theoretical discourse but for the practical or applied field, concentrating on seeking solutions to

the challenges of his time. In so doing he has laid the foundation for generations of researchers to

come. Junior scholars are being guided by the forthcoming vision of Quarantelli in his writtenlegacy on human behavior in disaster, social historical factors affecting disaster studies and

research findings (1987, 1987, 1988). Of course, the issue of education did not escape his

attention (1989). It is especially in this area of education that hazard/disaster research is at the

crossroad with emergency management professional development. Currently, the new generationof academic researchers is engaged in the higher education initiative in order to develop new

academic programs at the tertiary level to instruct the next cohorts of EM practitioners and

academic researchers. This new generation is taking steps to advance the discourse on

emergency management and disaster studies and to pursue the best venues to its application. Inso doing current and future researchers and educators will amplify and consolidate the legacy of

our predecessors.A second founder of the discipline, Russell R. Dynes, has a different approach to disaster

research that can be seen in the collection of articles, manuscripts and books he has authored

through the years. For example, he has made significant contributions to studies of communitiesin disaster including societal and community problems, organizational involvement and changes

in community structure (1967a, 1967b, 1970, 1994). More importantly, Dynes’ work on

organizational and social structure is a major theoretical contribution to the field (1975, 1979

with B. E. Aguirre, 1987). Finally, he has addressed the implications and aspects of disaster research in his work (1994 with Thomas E. Drabek, 1966, 1988). Furthermore, Dynes has taken

an historical approach to disasters on an international scale (1997, 1998, 1999).

In partnership, Quarantelli and Dynes have made a long lasting contribution to the field onadministrative, methodological and theoretical problems in disaster research (1967 with Eugene

Haas), organizations in disasters (1967, 1970), looting (1968a), collective behavior perspectives

of disaster (1968b), property norms in emergencies (1968c), conflict in natural disaster (1971,1976), and the myths and realities of social response to disaster (1972, 1977). As individual

researchers Quarantelli and Dynes’ work has contributed enormously to the discipline. However,

perhaps their real legacy is the foundation of the Disaster Research Center (DRC). The Disaster

Research Center, the first social science research center in the world devoted to the study of disasters, was established at Ohio State University in 1963 and moved to the University of

Delaware in 1985. Quarantelli and Dynes, other senior researchers/faculty, postdoctoral fellows,

graduate students, undergraduates and research support personnel at the DRC have conductednearly 600 field studies since the Center’s inception, traveling to communities throughout the

United States and to a number of foreign countries, including Mexico, Canada, Japan, Italy, and

Turkey (DRC 2005). DRC research yields both basic social science knowledge on disasters andinformation that can be applied to develop more effective plans and policies to reduce disaster

impacts. Besides maintaining its own databases, DRC serves as a repository for materials

collected by other agencies and researchers. DRC’s specialized library, which contains the

world’s most complete collection on the social and behavioral aspects of disasters—now

77



numbering more than 40,000 items—is open to both interested scholars and agencies involved in

emergency management (DRC 2005). The Center has its own book, monograph, and report

series with over 400 publications.The DRC maintains an on-going network of hazard/disaster researchers and amalgamates

a number of scholars from different disciplines from around the world including Armenia,

Australia, Argentina, Canada, China, France and the Far East at times hosting visiting researchassociates for year-long periods. In recent years, DRC has also organized several multinational

conferences focusing on disaster issues in Central America, Southern Asia, Europe, Japan, and

the former Soviet Union (DRC 2005). The work of the DRC has been supported by federalentities such as the National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation and National

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, and private non-profit entities such as the Public

Entity Risk Institute.

Geographical Tradition

A contemporary social scientist of Quarantelli and Dynes, Gilbert White, established an

alternative approach in human ecology independent to the sociological heritage. White’s work

created a stronghold of human geography and its invaluable application to the understanding of

environment, human settlements and the interconnectivity between them (1974, 1977). White,internationally renowned as the father of natural hazard research and management, devised and

conducted the first comprehensive assessment of hazards/social vulnerabilities to disasters in theU.S. from a holistic- interdisciplinary approach (1975). This pioneering assessment reported on

the nation’s ability to withstand and respond to natural disasters (Mileti 1999).

The Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center founded by White atthe University of Colorado – Boulder in 1976 is an example of the laborious work that this

scholar has conducted to materialize in perdurable structures the means for archiving past

research, facilitating current efforts of understanding, and providing the means to study and

implement new and futuristic ways to advance social science research and applications for generations of scholars and practitioners to come. The ongoing contribution of the Hazards

Center to the research and applied community is to advance and communicate knowledge on

hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness, response, and recovery using an all-hazards andinterdisciplinary framework. In this sense the Center complements and supplements the DRC by

integrating a natural hazard or environmental perspective.

The Natural Hazards Center serves as a national and international clearinghouse of knowledge concerning the social science and policy aspects of disasters (NHRAIC 2005). The

Center is funded by a consortium of federal agencies and non-profit organizations including the

Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Science Foundation, U.S. Geological Survey,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, the Institute

for Business and Home Safety, and the Public Entity Risk Institute, among others (NHRAIC

2005). The Center is guided by a National Advisory Committee comprised of representatives of federal agencies that have an interest in hazards as well as stakeholders from academia, state and

local government, the private sector, and the nongovernmental community. The Center promotes

an all-hazards approach for dealing with environmental extremes and has been a leading proponent of cooperative partnerships among varying disciplines.

The Natural Hazards Center also collects research and experience and shares it through

the production of several series of publications such as the Natural Hazards Informer, Natural

Hazards Review, Monographs, Working Papers, Special Publications and the Natural Hazards

78



Observer newsletter. In addition, the Center manages the Quick Response grant program, an

added tool for disaster scholars to travel to affected areas, a factor indispensable to the

acquisition of the body of knowledge in hazards research and science application. White’slegacy continues through the Natural Hazards Center programs.

Both the Natural Hazards Center and the Disaster Research Center are staffed by faculty

of the Sociology departments from their respective institutions. Thus, independent scholarsassociated with these centers have their own personal research agenda related to

hazards/disasters in concomitance with the center. However, these centers do not have affiliated

established degree programs at their institutions that specifically grant degrees in thehazard/disaster research school of thought (e.g., emergency management). Thus, the

advancement of knowledge created by these centers is independently driven as opposed to

channeling the knowledge they create into educating students via a formal degree program.

Rather, they educate a few students who work as research assistants in the centers following thesame pattern of individualized research on hazards/disasters as an addendum of a disciplinary

base that the affiliated faculty practices.

Other Pioneer Hazard/Disaster Researchers

A contemporary scholar of Quarantelli, Dynes and White, Fred Bates has infused muchinto the bloodline of the hazard/disaster field. His work on systems and his vision for merging

natural science theoretical arguments of systems theory (Maturana and Varela 1980) into thestudy of disaster has yet to make a big splash but is likely to do so, as the newer generations

study emergency management as an applied field in more detail. Bates’ theoretical assumptions

of self-referential cognitive systems and autopoiesis (1975, 1997) attempted to explain the rulesthat define how information is interpreted and used in social behavior. Bates and Harvey (1975)

addressed replication of cultural patterns through self-referential systems. Bates (1997) clearly

defines conflict as a non-systemic element, which continues to be an important subject especially

in relation to the ever increasing scarce resource demands during response, recovery andreconstruction operations. In other words, the study of social organization through self referential

systems could shed light on current efforts to organize more efficient and systemic emergency

organizations at all levels (Oyola-Yemaiel 2000).Another colleague of these senior scholars, a Canadian, is Joseph Scanlon. Scanlon

whose contribution is in risk communication and the media in disasters has opened the doors to

many into the studies of mass communication, rumor control and outreach prior, during and after disasters (1985). Scanlon has also pursued work on issues regarding death caused by disasters

particularly mass fatalities and the socio-cultural connotations related to body recovery,

identification and disposal including the historical event of the Halifax harbor ship explosion,

which is a seminal piece utilized heavily in the classroom (1988). His work on mass fatalitiescontinues to be relevant today for scholars studying the 2004 tsunami (Oyola-Yemaiel 2005).

The Second Generation

The second generation of hazard/disaster researchers is composed of the students of Quarantelli, Dynes, White, and Bates. These scholars have been responsible for continuing the

legacy of research traditions begun by the first generation. In their own right, they have

contributed enormously to the body of knowledge and are passing on the foundations of thediscipline to a younger audience.

Thomas E. Drabek, the first student of Quarantelli and Dynes, has published a collection

of publications related to disasters that covers a range of subjects from sociology of the family

(1984), social psychology (1999), to organizations (1974). In addition, his expertise encompasses

79



emergency management and the emergency manager (1987, 1991 with Gerard Hoetmer). Social

structure and organization applied to emergency management and emergency services are

models which the new generation is applying at the practical level and also in the academic arenavia emergency management curriculum (1990, 2003). Drabek’s contribution to the sociology of

disaster and emergency management is paramount and is utilized by contemporary researchers as

a springboard to further enlighten and bring solutions to real challenges that the nation will face.William A. Anderson’s endless efforts to help fund research while serving as an

administrator at the National Science Foundation has contributed greatly to the field of

hazard/disaster research by facilitating others to achieve their pursuit of knowledge in this area.Dennis Mileti, recent past director of the Natural Hazards Center, focused his research on the

societal aspects for hazards and disasters especially sustainable mitigation. He also led the

second assessment of U.S. hazards, which involved over 130 experts to assess knowledge,

research, and policy needs (Mileti 1999). Kathleen Tierney, the current director of the NaturalHazards Center and former co-director of the Disaster Research Center, has over twenty-five

years of experience in the disaster field. She has been involved in research on public perceptions

of the earthquake threat in California, socio-behavioral aspects of real-time warning systems for

earthquakes, risk communication, and the business impacts of disasters. Since September 11,2001, she has been directing a study on the organizational and community response in New York

following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (NHRIAC 2005). Joanne Nigg, former Co-Director of the DRC, has been involved in research on the societal response to natural,

technological, and environmental hazards and disasters since 1975. In addition, she has recently

developed an Emergency and Environmental Management concentration in the SociologyDepartment at the University of Delaware. David M. Neal and Brenda D. Phillips are pioneers in

reaching out to educate the emergency management community at the university level.

Another salient figure is Dennis Wenger, a student of Quarantelli and Dynes who

institutionalized the Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center (HRRC) at Texas A&M Universityin 1988. According to the website (HRRC 2005), the HRRC researchers focus on hazard

analysis, emergency preparedness and response, disaster recovery, and hazard mitigation on the

full range of natural disasters and technological hazards. The Hazard Reduction & RecoveryCenter is one of only two United Nations Collaborative Centers in the world. The center serves

the U.N. as a research and consultant agency with particular emphasis on national disaster plans

and their implications for future development. The staff of the HRRC is interdisciplinary innature and includes the expertise of architects, planners, sociologists, policy analysts, and

engineers.

This center, unlike the DRC and the Natural Hazards Center, offers an affiliated graduate

certificate in Environmental Hazard Management (EHM). EHM is an interdisciplinary programthat has been designed to provide students with an understanding of the interrelationship between

the built environment and extreme events in the natural environment. Courses in the EHM

Certificate program are taught by faculty fellows of HRRC in the colleges of Architecture,Engineering, Geosciences, and Liberal Arts. The courses address basic theory, empirical

research, and practical application related to both natural and technological hazards as well as the

implications of disaster research for policy formulation and implementation at the household,organizational, community, regional, state, federal, and international levels (HRRC 2005).

Beyond establishing the HRRC, Dennis Wenger’s contribution to disaster research is

substantial. For more than three decades, during which time he was co-director of the DRC, he

has focused upon issues concerning organizational and community preparedness, response, andrecovery. As a result of his distinguished career, he was named William Anderson’s replacement

80



at the National Science Foundation in 1997. At that time Michael Lindell became director of the

Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center. Lindell’s research focuses upon risk perception and

community involvement in hazard adjustments such as planning (1990 and 1992 with RonaldPerry). Currently, Bates’ student, Walter Gillis Peacock, is director of the HRRC. Peacock is

engaged in the discourse that Bates initiated and has applied his vision to issues of inequality and

of socio-political ecology of disasters. For example, in co-authorship, Bates and Peacock published a case study of the Guatemala earthquake (1992, 1989 and 1987 also with Charles

Killian) and a cross-cultural comparative study (1993). In addition, Peacock offered a related

methodological piece on cross-national and comparative disaster research (1997). But moresignificantly, Peacock co-edited the first treatise on social vulnerability and the sociology of

disaster following the worst natural disaster in U.S. history prior to Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane

Andrew (1997 with Betty Hearn Morrow and Hugh Gladwin).

All of the above mentioned scholars as well as others from various social sciencedisciplinary backgrounds such as Robert Stallings, Gary Kreps, Ronald Perry, Peter May, Robert

Bolin, Richard Sylves, William L. Waugh, Jr., Anthony Oliver-Smith, Claire Rubin, Susan

Cutter, Elaine Enarson, Betty Hearn Morrow, Maureen Fordham, and many others not

specifically mentioned here, have contributed greatly to the emerging discipline. We would liketo expound on the work of each of them as it has enriched the hazard/disaster research dialogue;

however, such expansion is beyond the capacity of this paper. Needless to say, these scholarshave coached, sponsored, and mentored figures who are now taking the drivers seat in guiding

the future of the emergent hazard/disaster discipline. These apprentices are doing their share to

continue the legacy and build the body of knowledge on the impacts of hazards/disasters onsociety. Some members of the current generation of social science hazard/disaster researchers are

ourselves, Gary Webb, Cheryl Childers, Tricia Wachtendorf, Nicole Dash, Lori Peek, Deborah

Thomas, David McEntire and James Kendra, among others.

Moving Toward Integrating the Legacy of Hazard/Disaster Research with Emergency

Management Higher Education

Although some scholars of the new generation are more purist than others in terms of

following the disciplinary lineage of classic hazard/disaster research, there should be room for other lines of research that expand knowledge even further. One additional research agenda

should be dedicated to emergency management per se. Hazard/disaster research must be both

highly theoretical and abstract at times and rooted in practical and timely applied science atothers. This dualism of social science hazard/disaster research is not new. According to oral

history, sociologically-based disaster research sprang out of a need to understand social behavior

in relation to the Cold War and the application of this knowledge in practical civil defense

operations (Drabek 1986). Thus, as analyzed by Wilson (2001), there is a parallel andintertwined relationship between the theoretical development of hazard/disaster discipline and

practical application as illustrated by the incorporation of this knowledge in the subsequent field

of emergency management. Civil defense evolved into the new field of emergency managementfrom a practical need to address the losses of life and property due to natural events, which

impacted the U. S. population in much greater numbers than the threat of nuclear holocaust had

ever been estimated. It is clear that the applied field of emergency management is the mechanismdesigned to implement the knowledge acquired through four decades of social science

hazard/disaster research.

But although it is clear for researchers that there is a direct connection between the

theoretical and the applied and that this marriage is one of structural and functional

81



synchronicity, in reality hazard/disaster research and emergency management do not necessarily

function as one. The transferability of knowledge is not direct nor is the communication between

the two free flowing. For instance, during the 2003 Natural Hazards Workshop, a common themespoken in various sessions was accessibility of researchers to emergency management

organizations. The issue of lack of accessibility demonstrates that there is no real communion

between the applied and the research communities. But beyond this, there are abysmal culturaldifferences between the academic world and the practitioner world. On the one hand, researchers

have made the mistake not to integrate themselves fully as practitioners in order to gain access,

trust, and direct experience. Rarely have academics ventured to the applied world. On the other hand, it is more common to see practitioners enter the academy to validate their field experience

and applied knowledge gained through years of work experience. In other words, practitioners

are often seeking higher education degrees to obtain additional credentials in order to achieve

better positions on the ladder of success. Practitioners until very recently have primarily come toemergency management (and they still do) from backgrounds in the military, fire, police and/or

public service and very seldom have had knowledge of the hazard/disaster research

discipline/school of thought (Wilson and Oyola-Yemaiel 2002). The Natural Hazards Workshop

has made a tremendous effort to merge together practitioners and academicians. It has succeededto some degree. The annual workshop draws the best from both fields in an attempt to combine

their efforts and maximize the possibilities of working together toward a common goal of research and application.

But this effort has not been enough, for there remains a well-known “gap” between

researchers and practitioners (Anderson and Mattingly 1991). As a result, an effort to bridge thegap has been underway since the mid-1990s when, via the vision of Kay Goss, FEMA

institutionalized the Higher Education Project at the Emergency Management Institute under the

direction of Wayne Blanchard. Since, there has been a relentless effort to develop higher

education academic programs in order to professionalize the field of emergency management. Inall, programs now span from just a few courses at community colleges to a handful of doctoral

degrees (Blanchard 2005). This exciting trend can at last solidify the social science

hazard/disaster body of knowledge as the theoretical foundation of the practice of emergencymanagement. Until now the common theme was single researchers scattered across the nation at

various institutions (with the exception of the Universities of Delaware and Colorado, Boulder)

doing their best to continue the tradition often as a sideline to other disciplinary responsibilitiesand pursuits. These individuals carried a tremendous load for their vision and success depended

entirely on their conviction, dedication and loyalty to the hazard/disaster research agenda.

Legitimacy has been a problem because disaster research was, and maybe still is to some degree,

marginal in relation to or when compared with other major disciplinarian paradigms such associal stratification or demography, etc. Indeed, many of us were told by our mentors in graduate

school not to solely concentrate in disaster research for we may need to rely on the more

established disciplinary paradigms to secure a job in the academy. This paradigmatic lack of legitimacy spilled over into challenges in obtaining necessary budgets for research, again

redoubling the efforts of independent scholars to overcome these obstacles with ingenuity.

But things are changing and entire academic programs may now focus on hazard/disaster research findings and their application to indoctrinate future generations of researchers as well as

practitioners (Wilson and Oyola-Yemaiel 2002, Wilson 2001). This is the validation to the

research and institutional foundations and the opportunities that our mentors sought since the

beginning – a disciplinary and cross-disciplinary institutionalized structure capable of supporting

82



the needed research and transmitting the acquired knowledge via teaching in the academy. A

communion between academia and practitioners is now a possibility with newly developed

emergency management/homeland security degree programs generating the next cohorts of practitioners. As the applied field becomes comprised of graduates from these programs,

accessibility of hazard/disaster research to emergency management organizations will no longer

be a problem. These practitioners will be versed in knowledge created by the legacy of socialscience hazard/disaster scholars.

These new emergency management/homeland security programs especially at the

doctoral level will serve as the vehicle to continue the hazard/disaster research agendaestablished by the pioneers and their students as a supplement and compliment to the recognized

research centers, the DRC and Natural Hazards Center. In addition, students and researchers in

these new emergency management degree programs must also address issues that have yet to be

fully studied. Such works are for instance to study emergency operations per se systematically,cross-jurisdictionally and longitudinally. Other areas for study include the interrelationships of

the Emergency Support Functions (ESFs), the military as support to first responders or military

operation integration with other ESFs, effective approaches of the Emergency Management

Assistance Compact (EMAC), disaster data archiving and access for use at the local, state andfederal levels, and efficiency of interoperability, resource management, organizational structure,

and financial development. Furthermore, research needs to be conducted on the application of policy and practices such as the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) to

address long-term implications and feasibility of standardizing practices across jurisdictions and

incorporating performance measures for daily operations.The field of social science hazard/disaster research is at a crossroads where it could fully

merge with the practice of emergency management and homeland security. There is an

opportunity for disaster researchers to reach out to and to collaborate with the new emergency

management academic discipline. Emergency management is evolving into an important appliedfield and is moving towards a profession (Oyola-Yemaiel and Wilson 2003, Wilson and Oyola-

Yemaiel 2002, 2001, Wilson 2001) along the lines of nursing and social work. This trend has

gained momentum due to September 11, the four Florida hurricanes of 2004 and HurricanesKatrina and Rita, which have precipitated and renewed efforts at all levels of government to

reinforce and advance emergency management/homeland security. Within this trend is the higher

education frenzy we are experiencing nationwide with some 121 new academic programsranging from a few courses to full fledged doctoral programs (Blanchard 2005). We must secure

this incredible and certainly slim opportunity in which emergency management degree programs

can be directly fed by the social science hazard/disaster research discipline in order to manifest a

new dimension of research and applied science. By creation of research and teaching agendas inthese new emergency management programs, they will be destined to build the nations’ capacity

for vulnerability reduction and resiliency to disasters.

We mustn’t repeat what others less visionary have done before us. In other words, weought not make the same mistake as sociologists did in the early 1900s when they disregarded

and disenfranchised practitioners – researchers and academics motivated by the application of

science (applied sociologists) – who in turn became the separate discipline of social work thatgained, in the view of some, a higher stature than its originator (Deegan 1988). The future of

social science hazard/disaster research is one in which researchers embrace and seed the

incipient academic discipline of emergency management. A combined agenda of hazard/disaster

research in the social sciences as studied until the present with an agenda to comprehensively

83



study the practical field of emergency management will yield a streamlined knowledge and more

effective application of policies and practices to serve society and to serve the organizations

dedicated to disaster reduction.The future is up to us – the second and third generation of hazard/disaster researchers

currently working and our students. The social science hazard/disaster research community must

reach out and unite its goals and objectives with those from emergency management/homelandsecurity academic programs. The synergy generated by this combined effort can yield a

comprehensive and futurist strategy. The application of this combined effort in applied science

will guarantee that the legacy of the Disaster Research Center, the Natural Hazards Research andApplication Information Center, its founders and the social science hazard/disaster research

community will continue.

References

Anderson, William A. and Shirley Mattingly. 1991. “Future Directions” in Thomas E. Drabek

and Gerard J. Hoetmer (eds.), Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for

Local Government. Washington D.C.: International City Management Association. Pp.

311-335.Bates, Fredrick L. 1997. Sociopolitical Ecology: Human Systems and Ecological Fields. New

York, NY: Plenum Press.Bates, Frederick L. and Clyde C. Harvey. 1975. The Structure of Social Systems. New York, NY:

Gardner Press, Inc.

Bates, Frederick L. and Walter G. Peacock. 1993. Living Conditions, Disasters and

Development: An Approach to Cross-Cultural Comparisons. Macon, GA: University of

Georgia Press.

______. 1992. “Measuring Disaster Impact on Household Living Conditions.” International

Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 9(1): 133-60. ______. 1989. “Long Term Recovery,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and

Disasters 7(3): 349-365.

Blanchard, B. Wayne. 2005. “Emergency Management Higher Education Project Presentation.”[Online] Available at

http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/downloads/highedbrief_course2.pdf .

Deegan, Mary. 1988. Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction, Inc.

Disaster Research Center (DRC). 2005. “About Us.” [Online] Available at

www.udel.edu/DRC/about.html.

Drabek, Thomas E. 2003. Strategies for Coordinating Disaster Responses. Boulder, Colorado:Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

_____. 1999. “Understanding Disaster Warning Responses.” The Social Science Journal 36(3):

515-523. _____. 1990. Emergency Management: Strategies for Maintaining Organizational Integrity.

New York: Springer-Verlag.

_____. 1987. The Professional Emergency Manager: Structures and Strategies for Success.Boulder, Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

_____. 1986. Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. New

York: Springer-Verlag.

84

http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/downloads/highedbrief_course2.pdf


http://www.udel.edu/DRC/about.html


http://www.udel.edu/DRC/about.html



Drabek, Thomas E. and J. E. Haas. 1974. Understanding Complex Organizations. Dubuque,

Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, Publishers.

Drabek, Thomas E. and G. Hoetmer. 1991. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. Washington, DC: International City Management Association.

Drabek, Thomas E. and W. H. Key. 1984. Conquering Disaster: Family Recovery and Long-

Term Consequences. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.Dynes, Russell R. 1966. “Theoretical Problems in Disaster Research,” Bulletin of Business

Research 41 (September): 1, 7-9.

______. 1967a. “Impact of Disaster on Community Life,” EMO National Digest 7 (April): 10-13.

______. 1967b. “Societal and Community Problems in Disaster,” EMO National Digest 7

(October): 16-18.

______. 1970. “Organizational Involvement and Changes in Community Structure in Disaster,” American Behavioral Scientist 13: 430-439.

______. 1975. “The Comparative Study of Disaster: A Social Organizational Approach,” Mass

Emergencies 1: 21-31.

______. 1987. “The Concept of Role in Disaster Research,” in Sociology of Disasters, R. R.Dynes, B. DeMarchi and C. Pelanda (Eds.). Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli, pp. 71-102.

______. 1988. “Cross-Cultural International Research: Sociology and Disaster,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 6: 101-129.

______. 1994. “Community Emergency Planning: False Assumptions and Inappropriate

Analogies,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 12: 141-158. ______. 1997. “The Lisbon Earthquake in 1755: Contested Meanings in the First Modern

Disaster.” Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

______. 1998. “Noah and Disaster Planning: The Cultural Significance of the Flood Story.”

Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware. ______. 1999. “The Dialogue between Voltaire and Rousseau on the Lisbon Earthquake: The

Emergence of a Social Science View.” Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center,

University of Delaware.Dynes, Russell R. and B. E. Aguirre. 1979. “Organization Adaptation to Crises: Mechanisms of

Coordination and Structural Change,” Disasters 3: 71-74.

Dynes, Russell R. and Thomas E. Drabek. 1994. “The Structure of Disaster Research: Its Policyand Disciplinary Implications,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and

Disasters 12: 5-23.

Dynes, Russell R., J. Eugene Haas and E. L. Quarantelli. 1967. “Administrative, Methodological,

and Theoretical Problems of Disaster Research,” Indian Sociological Bulletin 4: 215-227.Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center (HRRC). 2005. [Online] Available at

http://archone.tamu.edu/hrrc/scope/whatishrrc.shtml.

Hershiser, Marvin and E. L. Quarantelli. 1976. “The Handling of the Dead in a Disaster,” Omega7: 196-208.

Lindell, Michael K. and Ronald W. Perry. 1992. Behavioral Foundations of Community

Emergency Planning. Washington D.C.: Hemisphere Press.Maturana, H. R. and F. J. Varela. 1980 Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the

Living. Dordecht: Reidel.

Mileti, Dennis. 1999. Disasters by Design. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

85

http://archone.tamu.edu/hrrc/scope/whatishrrc.shtml

http://archone.tamu.edu/hrrc/scope/whatishrrc.shtml



Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center (NHRAIC). 2005. “About Us.”

[Online] Available at www.colorado.edu/hazards/about_us/html. Arthur Oyola-Yemaiel.

2005. “Cross-Cultural Analysis of Responses to Mass Fatalities Following the IndianOcean Tsunami of December 26, 2004,” Small Grant for Exploratory Research interim

report, National Science Foundation.

______. 2000. Towards the Formation of a Sustainable South Florida: An Analysis of Conflict Resolution and Consensus Building in the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem

Restoration Initiative. Lakeland, FL: Dissertation.com.

Oyola-Yemaiel, Arthur and Jennifer Wilson. 2005. “Three Essential Strategies for EmergencyManagement Professionalization in the United States.” International Journal of Mass

Emergencies and Disasters 23(1):77-84.

Peacock, Walter Gillis. 1997. “Cross-national and Comparative Disaster Research,”

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 15 (1): 117-133.Peacock, Walter Gillis, Betty Hearn Morrow, and Hugh Gladwin (Eds). 1997. Hurricane

Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters. NY: Routledge.

Peacock, Walter Gillis, Charles D. Killian, and Frederick L. Bates. 1987. “The Effects of

Disaster Damage and Housing Aid on Household Recovery Following the 1976Guatemalan Earthquake.” The International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters

5(1): 63-88.Perry, Ronald W. and Lindell, Michael K. 1990. Living with Mt. St. Helens: Human Adjustment

to Volcano Hazards. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press.

Quarantelli, E. L. 1966. “Organization Under Stress,” in Symposium on Emergency Operations,Robert Brictson (Ed.). Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corporation: 3-19.

______. 1977a. “Social Aspects of Disasters and Their Relevance to Pre-Disaster Planning,”

Disasters 1: 98-107.

______. 1977b. “Panic Behavior: Some Empirical Observations” in Human Response to Tall Buildings. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross: 336-350.

______.1979a. “Some Needed Cross-Cultural Studies of Emergency Time Disaster Behavior: A

First Step,” Disasters 3: 307-314. ______.1982a. “Social and Organizational Problems in a Major Community Emergency,”

Emergency Planning Digest 9 (January-March): 7-10, 21.

______. 1982b. “Ten Research Derived Principles of Disaster Planning,” Disaster Management 2: 23-25.

______. 1982c. “Reality and Myth in Community Disasters,” UNDRO News (November/

December): 6-9.

______. 1982d. “What is a Disaster? An Agent Specific or an All Disaster Spectrum Approachto Socio-Behavioral Aspects of Earthquakes?” in Social and Economic Aspects of

Earthquake, Barclay G. Jones and Miha Tomazevic (Eds.). Ljubljana, Yugoslavia and

Ithaca, NY: Institute for Testing and Research in Materials and Structures and Programin Urban and Regional Studies, Cornell University: 453-478.

______. 1987a. “Researching and Managing Human Behavior in Disaster,” Hazard Monthly 8:

7-9. ______. 1987b. “What Should We Study? Questions and Suggestions for Researchers About the

Concept of Disasters,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 5: 7-

32.

86

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/about_us/html

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/about_us/html



______. 1987c. “Disaster Studies: An Analysis of the Social Historical Factors Affecting the

Development of Research in the Area,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and

Disasters 5: 285-310. ______. 1988. “Disaster Crisis Management: A Summary of Research Findings,” Journal of

Management Studies 25: 373-385.

______. 1989. “Disaster Education: It’s Substantive Content and Target Audience,” in PostCongress Record of Proceedings Emergency 88 (London, Great Britain: Institute of Civil

Defense: 1-19.

______ (Ed.). 1998. What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question. London: Routledge.Quarantelli, E. L. and Barbara Baisden. 1979. “The Recovery Period in U.S. Disasters: Problems

and Opportunities” in Proceedings: National Public Policy Forum for Disaster Relief.

Racine, WI: National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters.

Quarantelli, E. L. and Russell R. Dynes. 1967. “Operational Problems of Organizations inDisasters,” Emergency Operations Symposium, Robert Brictson (Ed.). Santa Monica,

CA: System Development Corporation, pp. 151-175.

______. 1968a. “Looting in Civil Disorders: An Index of Social Change,” American Behavioral

Scientist 5: 7-10. ______. 1968b. “Group Behavior Under Stress: A Required Convergence of Organizational and

Collective Behavior Perspectives,” Sociology and Social Research 52: 416-429. ______. 1968c. “Redefinition of Property Norms in Community Emergencies,” International

Journal of Legal Research 3: 100-112.

______. 1970. “Organization as Victim in Mass Civil Disturbances,” Issues in Criminology 5:181-193.

______. 1971. “The Absence of Community Conflict in the Early Phases of Natural Disaster,” in

Conflict Resolution: Contributions of the Behavioral Sciences, Clagett G. Smith (Ed.).

Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 200-204. ______. 1972. “When Disaster Strikes (It Isn't Much Like What You've Heard and Read

About),” Psychology Today 5 (February): 66-70.

______. 1976. “Community Conflict: Its Absence and Its Presence in Natural Disasters,” Mass Emergencies 1: 139-152.

______. 1977. “Response to Social Crisis and Disaster,” Annual Review of Sociology 2: 23-49.

Scanlon, Joseph. 1988. “Dealing with Mass Death after a Community Catastrophe: HandlingBodies after the 1917 Halifax Explosion.” Disaster Prevention and Management 7 (4):

288-304.

Scanlon, Joseph, et al. 1985. “Coping with the Media in Disasters: Some Predictable Problems.”

Public Administration Review 45 (special issue): 123-133.Thomas, Deborah and Dennis Mileti. 2004. Designing Education Opportunities for the Hazards

Manager of the 21st Century Workshop report.

Wilson, Jennifer. 2001. The State of Emergency Management 2000: The Process of Emergency Management Professionalization in the United States and Florida. Lakeland, FL:

Dissertation.com. White, Gilbert (Ed.). 1974. Natural Hazards: Local, National and

Global. New York: Oxford University Press.Wilson, Jennifer and Arthur Oyola-Yemaiel. 2002. “An Emergency Management Profession:

Will We Make It?” ASPEP Journal 9:74-81.

______. 2001. “How Higher Education Can Contribute to Emergency Management

Professionalization: Florida’s Trial.” IAEM Bulletin 18(5): 1-6.

87



White, Gilbert and J. Eugene Haas. 1975. Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

White, Gilbert, Ian Burton and Robert Kates. 1977. The Environment as Hazard . New York:Oxford University Press.

88

Documents

Future of EM - Social Science Hazard-Disaster Research - Oyo