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

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.

Keywords

Canada / Disaster research / Hazards / Quick response / Social science

References

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

[2] Alexander D. Natural disasters, 1993, London: UCL Press

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

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

[5] Burton I, Kates RW, White GF. The environment as hazard, 1978, New York: Oxford University Press

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

[7] Gaillard JC. Disaster studies inside out. Disasters, 2019, 43(S1): S7-S17

[8] 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.

[9] Gaillard JC, Peek L. Disaster-zone research needs a code of conduct. Nature, 2019, 575: 440-442

[10] Gomez C, Hart DE. Disaster gold rushes, sophisms and academic neocolonialism: Comments on “Earthquake disasters and resilience in the global North”. The Geographical Journal, 2013, 179: 272-277

[11] Hewitt K. Hewitt K. The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology, 1983, Boston: Allen & Unwin Inc. 3-32.

[12] 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.

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

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

[15] 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.

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

[17] 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.

[18] Lavell A, Maskrey A. The future of disaster risk management. Environmental Hazards, 2014, 13(4): 267-280

[19] 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.

[20] 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.

[21] Mukherji A, Ganapati NE, Rahill G. Expecting the unexpected: Field research in post-disaster settings. Natural Hazards, 2014, 73(2): 805-828

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

[23] Phillips B. Stallings RA. Qualitative methods and disaster research. Methods of disaster research, 2002, Newark, DE: International Research Committee on Disasters 194-211.

[24] Quarantelli EL. The Disaster Center field studies of organized behavior in the crisis time period of disasters. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 1997, 15(1): 47-69.

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

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

[27] Stallings RA. Stallings RA. Methods of disaster research: Unique or not?. Methods of disaster research, 2002, Newark, DE: International Research Committee on Disasters 21-46.

[28] Stallings RA. Rodriguez H, Quarantelli EL, Dynes R. Methodological issues. Handbook of disaster research, 2007, New York: Springer 55-82

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

[30] Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I. At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters, 2004, New York: Routledge

[31] Witt E, Lill I. Methodologies of contemporary disaster resilience research. Procedia Engineering, 2018, 212: 970-977

[32] Zwi AB, Grove NJ, Mackenzie C, Pittaway E, Zion D, Silove D, Tarantola D. Placing ethics at the centre, negotiating new spaces for ethical research in conflict situations. Global Public Health, 2006, 1(3): 264-277