46 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2019
    1. . Previously, scholars have generally ignored any notion of time. Now, we need to make explicit our use of time in understanding disaster. Such an application, I believe, will give us a much deeper understanding on defining disaster, how and why such events unfold, and how various social entities attempt to return to normal after the event. Finally, the use of social time in disaster can provide sociologists a deeper look into understanding key theoretical issues related to social order, social change and social emergence, along with voluntaristic versus deterministic patterns of behavior among various units of analysis.

      Scarcity of temporal considerations in previous work.

      Connects sociotemporal experiences and enactment of time to social order, social change, volunteer behavior and new units of analysis.

      Here's my central thesis.

    2. the field. Such a fresh approach possibly improves a wide range of conceptual issues in disasters and hazards. In addition, such an approach would give us insights on how disaster managers, emergency responders, and disaster victims (recognizing that these “roles” may overlap in some cases) see, use and experience time. This, in turn, could assist with a number of applied issues (e.g., warning, effective “response,” priorities in “recovery”) throughout the process of disaster.

      Neal cites his 1997 paper about the need to develop better categories to describe disaster phases. Here, her attempts to work through those classifications with a sociotemporal bent.

      Evokes Bowker and Star's work on classification and boundary objects/infrastructures but also Yakura (2002) on temporal boundary objects.

    3. Second, I believe that the concept of entrainment could open new doors for understanding post-impact behavior, or the transition from post-impact to pre-impact (or everyday) behavi

      Neal argues that the temporal concept of entrainment (two things synchronizng their pace) can help to differentiate another long-standing critique of disaster research -- the different disaster phase impacts on individuals and sub-groups over time. This gets at his concern (see also Brenda Phillips' work) for feminist, post-colonial and critical theory perspectives on the study of disaster and social change.

      Here, Neal posits that returning to pre-impact social rhythms could be a better measure of social change catalyzed by a disaster.

      "Rather than using economic, demographic, familial or other measures of social change, entrainment could be a key measure in understanding social change and disaster."

    4. The use of social time may also give us a unique view on understanding slow moving disasters (e.g., environmental events, famines and droughts) when compared to sudden impact events. Social time and social disruption provides tools to define disaster without making assessments (i.e., good/bad) of the event.

      Neal also contends that time embedded in the disaster onset (sudden vs slow) is a better heuristic for studying these events.

    5. In this paper I have shown that the application of social time and social disruption to disaster settings (i.e., pre-impact, impact, post-impact) along can provide a unique way to understand disasters. First, by integrating the ideas of event time, social time, and social disruption, we can develop a foundation for creating an empirically based continuum of everyday life/emergency, disaster, and catastrophe. An implication of this approach is that we use specific social criteria (based upon social disruption via the various time concepts) to define the event. As a result, drawing upon social time and social disruption casts a rather wide net in understanding events what we call disa

      Principally, Neal's argument is embedded in his long-standing critique that the language of disaster research and emergency response practice is not precise enough and thus the disaster phases framework is flawed.

      Here, he attempts to re-characterize the disaster phases as sociotemporal constructions about events (pre-impact, impact, and post-impact).

    1. It should be no surprise recognizing the problematic-theoretical simi­larities between disaster research and its "half-sibling" (e.g., see Wenger 1987), collective behavior. Both disaster research and collective behavior are at a theoretical standstill (e.g., see Aguirre and Quarantelli 1983), and both still rely upon every-day language rather than a broader scheme for describing events (e.g., see Weller and Quarantelli 1973, McPhail 1992). Works by Kreps and Bosworth (1994) and Dombrowsky (1981; 1987), (and perhaps Barton's 1970 classic work) reflect the theoretical attention disaster research needs to build.

      Connects crisis informatics research with collective behavior.

      I wonder though does Neal define collective behavior and collection action differently?

      Look at these citations:

      Quarantelli, E.L. 1985. Emergent Citizen Groups in Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Activities. Final Report 33. Newark, Delaware: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware

      Turner, Ralph and Lewis Killian. 1987. Collective Behavior. Third Edition. Engle­wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

      Weller, Jack M. and E. L. Quarantelli. 1973. "Neglected Characteristics of Collec­tive Behavior," American Journal of Sociology 79:665-85.

      Wenger, Dennis. 1987. "Collective Behavior and Disaster Research." Pp. 213-237 in Sociology of Disasters, edited by R. Dynes, B. De Marchi and C. Pelanda. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.

    2. The use of disaster periods provides a useful heuristic device for disaster researchers and disaster managers. These various approaches of disaster Phases give researchers an important means to develop research, organize dates, and generate research findings. Similarly, the use of disaster phases benefits disaster managers in attempting to improve their capabilities. Yet, the current use of disaster phases creates broad definitional problems of the field. I show that the current attempts to describe disaster phases are good heuristic devices, but not effective scientific concepts. Yet, scientific, empirical, and theoretical conclusions are drawn from the use of these Phases.

      Future work in disaster response research (circa 1997). Primary focus for Neal is:

      1) theory development

      2) "more systematic, scientific approach to describe disaster phases"

    3. The next logical step to aid analysis would be to cross-tabulate the temporal periods of "before, during, and after" with functional activities. This type of analysis and consideration could be further extended by including both the unit of analysis and various social categories such as social class or ethnicity. This type of three-dimensional approach would also strongly highlight the idea that disaster phases are multilayered. Overall, not only do different groups and units of analysis experience the phases at different times, but that multiple aspects of time (i.e., objective and subjective; before, during, after a disaster) intermesh with specific activities.

      Evokes temporal boundary objects and classification alongside feminist and post-colonial HCI approaches.

    4. We must differentiate whether the use of any phrase refers to temporal or functional aspects of disaster. They should not have multiple meanings

      Sensemaking ia a big problem, especially when it comes to multiple stakeholders involved in a disaster (responders, victims, effected people, policy wonks, legislators, researchers, etc.)

      Evokes boundary objects work

    5. Both researchers and practitioners have seemed to have socially defined some notion of disaster phases for their use. The researchers' job is to create theoretical clarification.

      Again arguing for more theoretical weight to disaster research to provide a framework for critical inquiry (validity, reliability, etc.) and generalizability.

    6. Yet, as Alexander (1982) cautions, good theory must have components of both deterministic and voluntary behavior at all levels of analysis. We do not live in a strictly deterministic world. Thus, as family cycle researchers have learned, we must move with theoretical caution when embracing phases as part of a theoretical model.

      This section feels a bit less complete, but if I understand correctly, Neal argues that the assumption that disaster phases exist as some predictable linear or cyclical model is overly deterministic in an unsatisfying way for disasters as complex social activity. Examining the trajectory of disaster phases at various levels of analysis is crucial.

    7. Also, with disaster research having strong theoretical ties with the study of collective behavior(Wenger 1987), and with the field of collective behavior often looking at issues related to social change {e.g., riots, social move­ments), another link between disasters and social change has implicitly

      Neal connects concerns about disaster-driven social change and the natural desire for people to respond via some collective action impulse.

      Nice segue into SBTF as collection action motivated by social change

    8. The issue of disaster, and phases and social change is an important consid­eration since the "what is a disaster?" debate draws directly upon whether disasters are a "social problem," {e.g., Drabek 1989; Kreps and Drabek 1996), part of a "reconstructionist" approach {e.g., Stallings 1991), or part of social change {e.g., Quarantelli 1987a). I do not see these important aspects of these approaches as contradictory. Interestingly, these three approaches reflect the three main theoretical issues of sociology (see Hinkle 1980): social statics {generally associated with functionalism), social change {generally associated with conflict theory), and social emergence{generally associated with symbolic interactionism).

      Neal raises interesting epistemological questions about the nature of disaster, how it is defined/framed in the research, and the ways of knowing applied to the study.

    9. Cross-cultural disaster research may also provide further insights regard­ing disaster phases.

      Evokes feminist, critical and post-colonial theory, as well as multi- and inter-disciplinary research methods/perspectives, e.g., anthropology, etc.

      These points of view may also provide insights on how disaster phases interact with wholly different notions of social time.

    10. As the field of collective behavior highlights, individuals in social settings have different perceptions of reality-social settings are not homogeneous (e.g., Turner and Killian I 987).' Thus, to tap further the mutually inclusive, multidimen­sional and social-time aspects of disaster phases, researchers should draw upon multiple publics and their definition of disaster phases.

      Neal suggests avoiding the disaster phase terminology when interviewing various stakeholders (emergency mgt, disaster-affected people, government agencies) in order to "draw upon various groups' language to describe phases" instead of the National Governors Assn phases.

    11. Consid� e�g the redefinition of disaster phases based on social time may help us WJtb the broader and more important struggle of defining disaster.

      What happened with this call to arms? Did Neal or others in the emergency management research community follow up?

      http://ijmed.org/articles/624/download/ <-- Neal's 2013 paper on "Social Time and Disaster"

    12. Consid� e�g the redefinition of disaster phases based on social time may help us WJtb the broader and more important struggle of defining disaster

      Neal wrote a more recent 2013 paper discussing the topic of social time and disaster.


    13. D!saster and hazard researchers have recognized the social time aspect of disasters. Dynes_ (1970) alludes to social time regarding the social consequences of a disaster. Dynes observes that social time: is important because the activities of every community vary over a period of time duri�� �e day, the week, the month, and the year. S�c� patterned acuv1nes have implications for potential damage within thecommurnty, for preventative activity within the commu­�ty, for the inventory of the meaning of the disaster, for the rmm�?1ate tasks necessary within the community, and for the mobilizanon of community effort. (Dynes 1970, p. 63)

      As early as 1970 (pre-Zerubavel, Adam, Nowotny, and Giddens), Dynes suggested that social time be taken into account for disaster response.

      ** Get this paper. What social time work did he cite?

    14. The Phases Should Reflect Social Rather Than Objective Time Giddens (I 987), although not the first, makes an important theoretical distinction between social and objective time. Giddens defines clock time as the use of quantified units. Clock time represents "day-to-day" structured activities. Typically, studies refer to disaster phases with hours, days, weeks, or years. Social time, however, is contingent upon the needs or opportunities of a society.

      Cites Giddens here to describe differences between social time (sturcturation) and clock time.

    15. Disaster Phases Are Multidimensional Another component of the mutually inclusive nature of disaster phases is that they are multidimensional

      Neal argues that individuals and groups, and subunits of each, may experience phases at different times.

    16. Disaster Phases Are Mutually Inclusive As previously indicated, disaster phases overlap. From a theoretical and applied viewpoint, researchers and practitioners must first recognize that disaster phases are not discrete units.

      Neal argues that disaster phases are interconnected and influence what happens (or does not happen) in other phases.

    17. Second, the manner the field handles the issue of disaster phases actually reflects a larger problem in the field. Specifically, how do we define disaster? Kreps (1984, p. 324) comes closest to recognizing the relationship among disaster phases, the theoretical components of disaster (i.e., social order and social action), and the definition of disaster (primarily in a heading in his paper). Unfortunately, he does not elaborate upon the connection of defining disaster and disaster phases. Thus, recognizing and recasting our notion of disaster phases may actually help the field more precisely understand or define "disaster."

      Has this changed since 1997? Cites a passage from Quarantelli that argues disaster research is not well defined.

      Evokes Bowker and Star's boundary objects work.

    18. Researchers have at times treated the disaster phases as scientific constructs to order data and for scientific analysis. However, as the organizational and family literature show, assumptions based on life-cycle approaches and assumptions often fall outside the realm of appropriate scientific analysis. Here, the phases within the disaster life cycle fall outside the scientific necessity of well-de­fined, mutually exclusive concepts.

      Critique of scientific methods/needs for classification leading practitioner work astray. Good analogy with family life cycles.

    19. One high-level manager involved with the Federal Response Plan made the following reflection about two weeks after Hurricane Andrew occurred: My feeling is that recovery needs to start day one, or even prior to a disaster. It would be wise to set up a group or task force, or a committee. They get together to gather information as the disaster begins. The potential for fragmentation is enormous. It actually goes back to intelligence, damage information. It is difficult to plan for recovery when you do 001 have a sense for how long it could take. You know, recovery has already begun. FEMA has already issued over one million dollars worth of checks .... Anyway, why not have a recovery unit? That would be cool. They should deal the long term recovery within hazard mitigation. In any event that needs to be happening ftom day one.

      Interesting. This pretty much describes the SBTF mission, per the intelligence gathering.

    20. Finally, the notation of the disaster phases affected emergency-respond­ers' decisions. The lexicon of the four phases appeared to force disaster managers and responders to think and respond in a linear, separate-category fashion. Thus, this paradigm in the end can hurt effective response

      Need to research whether these issues have been resolved or workarounds put in place since this 1997 publication. I kind of suspect not.

    21. Addinonal �g­recovery research by Phillips (1991) shows that different_ categones of disaster victims exit and enter disaster-housing phases at different nmes. She finds that some special-population groups ( e.g., elderly, Hispanics) take a much longer time to transition from temporary to pennanent sheltenng, and from sheltering to temporary and permanent housing than other popu· lation segments.

      Example of the need for feminist/critical theory in crisis informatics research

    22. Of equal importance, both structural-and non­structural-mitigation techniques would lessen dramatically response needs. In essence, effective mitigation and preparation would lessen response time. Logically extended, effective mitigation and preparation when coupled with an effective response could decrease the time for both short-and long-tenn recovery. Tlus analysis further convinced me of the interconnec­tiveness of the disaster periods.

      Another anecdote about de-coupling phase classifications from temporality in order to better describe what is happening. Need some sort of sliding scale.

    23. In summary, the ECGs study from DRC showed me that the use of disaster periods created analytical problems. The categories often over­lapped, different groups perceived and experienced the disaster phases differently, and individuals or groups defined differently the actual or potential event

      Mismatch between disaster phase classifications and temporal periods of those phases as experienced by individuals/groups.

    24. emergent citizen groups (ECGs) in disasters (e.g., Neal I 984, Quarantelli 1985)

      How are emergent citizen groups defined? How is it similar/different than DHNs?

      Get these papers.

    25. Emergency response and recovery is not a linear process; decisions that are made during the emergency phase will impact the recovery process. In practice, however, recovery often takes place in an ad hoc fashion because key decisions are not part of a strategic program to restore services and rebuild communities. (Dumam et al. 1993, p. 30)

      This practitioner critique gets at the importance of better understanding temporal sensemaking and enactment during disasters since decisions can influence across the different phases

    26. Therefore, if disaster researchers wish to improve the theoretical devel­opment of the field dramatically, I argue that we should reanalyze the current heuristic related to the phases.

      Is Neal still making this argument?

    27. In fact, the Functions and Effects Study generated the notion that the relationship between mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery is not even linear. Rather, some preparedness activities (like educating government officials) could really have mitigation effects; and some recovery activities mitigate against future disasters (like using housing Joans to relocate residences out of a flood plain). The Functions and Effects experts hypothesized at least a cyclical relationship among !hese four phases of disaster activity. (National Governor's Association 1979:108)

      Describes the phases as not linear, and more cyclical.

    28. Others also allude to the fact that these categories are not mutually exclusive. Haas, Kates, and Bowden (1977) make the following important observation:

      Phases may vary temporally, may overlap, differ in pace, and/or never come to a periodic conclusion depending on the pre-disaster built environment.

    29. Despite a positive approach regarding time models, Stoddard concludes the discussion by saying, a simple or complex time model is not comprehensive enough by itself to integrate completely disaster research. Additional con­structs are required for methodological and theoretical compari­sons and liaisons between findings and the various disaster studies. (Stoddard 1968, p. 12)

      Critique of incomplete temporal models for disaster research.

    30. Since the beginning of the field, disaster researchers have observed various types of disaster periods. Specifically, different events seem to occur at different times related to a disaster. Also, both academics and practitioners assume that these phases exist, and act as if they do exist Yet, in the last 30 years or so, disaster researchers or practitioners have accom­plished little in defining or refining the use of disaster phases. Yet, as I show in the next two sections, both researchers and practitioners have questioned the use of disaster phases since their initial use.

      Is this criticism still true?

    31. The National Governor's Association Report

      History and updated information about the CEM:

      Introduction to Emergency Management - 2016

    32. Other empirical studies show that the recovery process is not a simple, linear, or cyclical process. Different units or groups may experience, or perceive that they experience, the different stages of recovery I) at different times and 2) at different rates of time.

      Neal cites several studies that contend the recovery process is temporally complex.

    33. Overall, recovery studies suggest that subcategories of the recovery process exist. However, different units of analysis (e.g., individual versus group) or different types of groups (e.g., based on ethnicity or social class) may experience the phases of recovery at differing rates. Thus, patterns, phrases or cycles of recovery are not linear.

      Strong statement on how the unit of analysis can influence disaster research beyond theoretical frameworks and the need to look at temporality differently.

    34. Phillips' (1991) analysis of housing following the Loma Prieta Earth­quake confirms these different phases. Also, her study shows that different groups of people, often based upon such factors as social class or ethnicity, go through the phases of housing recovery at different times.

      Makes a good case here for the need to use feminist and/or post-colonial lens to study disaster phases.

    35. The edited work by Haas, Kates, and Bowden ( 1977) illustrates the complexity of the recovery process. Unlike most other overall codification efforts, the above authors explicitly recog­nize that recovery reflects a complex process. They note that people use several subcategories (e.g., restoration, recovery, rehabilitation, redevelop­ment, reconstruction) to describe aspects of the recovery period.

      This classification of the recovery phase by Haas, Kates, and Bowden inclues more description of the phases but still cast it as a linear timeline.

    36. In Drabek's (1986) more recent codification effort, he modifies the disaster phases. His revision reflects the language of the National Governor's Association's 1979 recommendations (i.e., preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation) of disaster phases.

      Some of Drabek's updates include temporal markers (pre- and post-impact, periods of time, etc.) Neal continues to criticize the lack of definition and theory driving the evolution of classification.

      The current NGA homeland security classifications are: Prepare, Prevent, Respond, Recover.

      (https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GovsGuidetoHomelandSecurity2010-FINAL.pdf )

    37. Stoddard argues that the use of time-and-space models in disaster research

      Complete quote runs over 2 pages: "Stoddard argues that the use of time-and-space models in disaster research provides an important methodological disaster research tool. Most important, he contends that the different phases of disaster represent different types of individual and group behavior."

      Stoddard's definition offers a solid framework to begin the conversation about how and why it's important to understand the interaction between pluritemporal modes of time and humanitarian response (individual and group sensemaking and enactment).

    38. By the 1960s, researchers had studied many disasters to allow codifica­tion efforts (Quarantelli and Dynes 1977). For some (e.g., Dynes 1970) disaster periods refer to a temporal category (e.g., before a disaster strikes, while a disaster strikes, after a disaster strikes). In other cases, the use of the phases may refer to functional activities that may or may not also be embedded with temporal considerations (stocking supplies, search and rescue, responding while the disaster strikes, attempting to recovery from the impact). For example, Barton (1970) combines both functional and temporal considerations of disaster. Yet, these and other writers never fully explored the theoretical implications of using the phases in their research

      Early work to codify natural disasters relied in different degrees on the temporality of the event as a timeline of before/during/after.

      Neal critiques this work as lacking in theoretical implications.

    39. He adds that this phase could be important with sudden impacts, but not as important with slow-moving impacts.

      Barton's definition of disaster phases (1970) includes event temporality: slow-moving vs sudden.

    40. Disasters, Dynes argues, follow a general temporal sequence despite the agent. Dynes em­ploys these phases to argue successfully for an "all hazards" approach to disaster

      Dyne's definition evokes Powell's timeline approach to all disaster phases.

    41. Mileti, Drabek, and Haas developed their six categories of: 1) preparedness/adjust­ment; 2) warning; 3) pre-impact, early actions; 4) post-impact, short-term actions; 5) relief or restoration, and 6) reconstruction. They justify these categories by noting that "Numerous researchers have documented how activities and nonnative definitions appear to vary across time and vary greatly among events" (Mileti, Drabek, Haas 1975, p. 9). The six phases serve as a central component of the authors' codification effort (it organizes the book chapters). Yet, the authors do not provide a more specific defini­tion for each category. Other theoretical underpinnings in the book receive much more detailed justification (e.g., collective stress, social nature of disaster).

      An update to Barton and Dyne's work by Mileti, Drabek and Haas continues to give short-shrift to theoretical underpinnings of the classifications, per Neal.

      Evokes Bowker and Star's work on classifications.