Attached is a word document that contains the instructions for the assignment as well as a PDF file that is to be used to help in completing the assignment. Please read the instructions carefully and follow them closely to complete the assignment. If you have any questions or concerns about this assignment please feel free to message me.
assignment_instructions.docx

what_is_a_disaster.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Assignment Instructions:
Read Chapters 1 – 9 of “What is a Disaster” by Perry & Quarantelli (eds.). PDF Attached.
Provide an approximate 1500-word document analyzing important concepts in the readings.
Ensure your apply the discussion tenets from the contributors to you work including the work of Scanlon,
Alexander, Cutter, Jigyasu, Britton, and Dombrowsky. Assume that you are writing for an uninformed
reader that knows nothing about the topic and has not read what you read. Provide an introduction that
gives the background of the resource that you are reviewing, so the reader will understand what they’re
reading and why. Include the following topics in the discussion:
– Discuss why is it difficult to define the concept of disaster? Is it a moving target?
– Analyze and discuss the role of culture and the design of civilization on the way disasters are
perceived.
– Define ‘reality’ and ‘construct’. Analyze and discuss if there is such a thing as reality? Why or why
not?
– Assess and discuss the role of ‘respondent’ in academic discussions. What role does a respondent
play, and what value does he/she add?
DO NOT list out the topics or questions and answer them. Provided APA formatted
headings. Ensure that you meet or exceed the 1500-word target, and that your paper meets APA
presentation requirements
WHAT IS A DISASTER?
WHAT IS A DISASTER?
New Answers to Old Questions
Ronald W. Perry
E.L. Quarantelli
Editors
Copyright © 2005 by International Research Committee on Disasters.
Library of Congress Number:
ISBN :
Hardcover
Softcover
2004195094
1-4134-7986-3
1-4134-7985-5
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the copyright owner.
This book was printed in the United States of America.
To order additional copies of this book, contact:
Xlibris Corporation
1-888-795-4274
www.Xlibris.com
Orders@Xlibris.com
27509
CONTENTS
Contributors ……………………………………………………………………11
Forward …………………………………………………………………………..13
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………19
PART I
1: An Interpretation Of Disaster In Terms Of Changes In
Culture, Society And International Relations
David Alexander …………………………………………………..25
2: Are We Asking The Right Question?
Susan L. Cutter …………………………………………………….39
3: Disaster: A “Reality” Or Construct”?
Perspective From The “East”
Rohit Jigyasu ……………………………………………………….49
4: What’s A Word? Opening Up The Debate
Neil R. Britton …………………………………………………….60
5: Not Every Move Is A Step Forward:
A Critique Of David Alexander, Susan L. Cutter,
Rohit Jigyasu And Neil Britton
Wolf R. Dombrowsky ……………………………………………79
6: The Meaning Of Disaster:
A Reply To Wolf Dombrowsky
David Alexander …………………………………………………..97
7: Pragmatism And Relevance:
A Response To Wolf R. Dombrowsky
Susan L. Cutter …………………………………………………. 104
8: Defining The Definition For Addressing The “Reality”
Rohit Jigyasu ……………………………………………………. 107
9: Dog Or Demon?
Neil R. Britton …………………………………………………. 113
PART II
10: Disaster And Collective Stress
Allen H. Barton ………………………………………………… 125
11: From Crisis To Disaster:
Towards An Integrative Perspective
Arjen Boin ………………………………………………………… 153
12: Disaster: Mandated Definitions,
Local Knowledge And Complexity
Philip Buckle ……………………………………………………. 173
13: In The Eyes Of The Beholder? Making
Sense Of The System(s) Of Disaster(s)
Denis Smith ……………………………………………………… 201
14: Disaster, Crisis, Collective Stress,
And Mass Deprivation
Robert Stallings ………………………………………………… 237
15: A Response To Robert Stallings: Ideal Type Concepts
And Generalized Analytic Theory
Allen H. Barton ………………………………………………… 275
16: Back To Nature? A Reply To Stallings
Arjen Boin ………………………………………………………… 280
17: Response To Robert Stallings
Philip Buckle ……………………………………………………. 286
18: Through A Glass Darkly: A Response To Stallings
Denis Smith ……………………………………………………… 292
PART III
19: Disasters, Definitions And Theory Construction
Ronald W. Perry ………………………………………………… 311
20: A Social Science Research Agenda For The Disasters
Of The 21st Century: Theoretical, Methodological And
Empirical Issues And Their Professional Implementation
E. L. (Henry) Quarantelli …………………………………. 325
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………… 397
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Globalization, modernity and their
implications for disaster …………………………………… 207
Table 2. Elements of the crisis timeline …………………………… 219
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
Disaster: towards an initial construction ……………. 209
Elements of disaster research ……………………………. 214
Towards a root definition of disaster …………………. 223
Shifting definitions of the disaster
process in three stages …………………………………….. 225
Figure 5. Space-place-time and the development
of disaster potential ………………………………………… 228
Figure 6. Learning and the incubation
process within disasters …………………………………… 229
Figure 7. Issues for disaster research ……………………………….. 235
In memory of
Fred Bates and Ritsuo Akimoto,
Disaster Research Pioneers
CONTRIBUTORS
David Alexander is Scientific Director of the Region of
Lombardy School of Civil Protection, based in Milan, Italy.
[the.catastrophe@virgin.net]
Allen H. Barton was for many years a Professor of Sociology and Director
of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University,
and has retired to North Carolina at 118 Wolf ’s Trail, Chapel
Hill, NC 27516 USA. [allenbarton@mindspring.com]
Arjen Boin is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Public
Administration, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
[Boin@fsw.leidenuniv.nl]
Neil R. Britton is Team Leader (International Disaster Reduction
Strategies Research) and EqTAP Project Chief Coordinator, at
the Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Centre, National
Research Institute of Earth Sciences and Disaster Prevention,
Kobe, Japan. [neil@edm.bosai.go.jp].
Philip Buckle is a Senior Lecturer in the Coventry Centre for
Disaster Management, Coventry University, Priory Street,
Coventry CV1 5FB United Kingdom. [p.buckle@coventry.ac.uk]
Susan L. Cutter is a Carolina Distinguished Professor and Director
of the Hazards Research in the Department of Geography at
the University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 USA.
[scutter@sc.edu]
Wolf R. Dombrowsky is Director of the Katastrophenforschungsstelle (KFS) [Disaster Research Unit], ChristianAlbrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, Kiel D24098, Germany. [wdombro@soziologie.uni-kiel.de]
11
12
(EDITED BY) RONALD W. PERRY & E.L. QUARANTELLI
Rohit Jigyasu is a conservation architect and planner and visiting
faculty in the Department of Architectural Conservation,
School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India.
[rohitjigyasu72@yahoo.com]
Ronald W. Perry is Professor of Public Affairs in the School of
Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287
USA [ron.perry@asu.edu]
E. L. Quarantelli is Emeritus Professor at the Disaster Research
Center, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716,
USA. [elqdrc@udel.edu]
Denis Smith is Professor of Management and Director of the
Management School at the University of Liverpool, United
Kingdom. [denis.smith@liverpool.ac.uk]
Robert A. Stallings is Professor of Public Policy and Sociology,
Program in Public Policy, School of Policy, Planning, and
Development, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California 90089-0626, USA. [rstallin@usc.edu]
FORWARD
T. Joseph Scanlon
Professor Emeritus and Director,
Emergency Communications Research Unit,
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
On the morning of September 11, 2001, I received a phone
call from Canada’s public radio system, the CBC, asking me to
comment on the terrorist attack on the United States. I said among
other things that New York City had enormous resources and that
these resources would give it the resilience needed to cope with
and recover from the events of that day. My host was to say the
least skeptical. Mesmerized by the visuals of the planes hitting the
towers and the towers collapsing, she was—at least at that
moment—incapable of grasping the concept of resilience or of what
Susan Cutter might call an “affordable disaster”.
This volume—What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question—
is the fourth volume in our series of books on disaster, the second
to tackle the definition of disaster. Reading it, I was struck by how
much of the debate was—or so it seemed to me—influenced by
awareness of various events and how much of that awareness was
media related. That was of course especially true of 9/11, an event
which most, but not all of the contributors to this volume, felt
compelled to mention, and an event that was not even in the back
of our minds when the first volume was published, yet an event
that has changed the way many think about disaster. As Neil Britton
writes: “ . . . the fundamentals of conventional organized emergency
13
14
(EDITED BY) RONALD W. PERRY & E.L. QUARANTELLI
management are now about fifty years old. During that period,
the practice of emergency management has changed from an
essentially reactive and response-focused command-and-control civil
defence approach, which grew out of the 1940s World War II and
1950s Korean War eras, phased into a comprehensive and
integrated approach during the late 1970s, and from the 1990s
started to re-emerge around the twin concepts of risk management
and sustainable hazard mitigation.” However, recent events
connected with highly organized terrorist attacks in different parts
of the world, most notably in the USA whereby a strong reaction
has resulted in its lead disaster agency being subsumed into a federal
homeland security mega-department, might see this latest
transformation being short-lived in favour of a replay of earlier
cycles.
Ron Perry makes the importance of 9/11 similarly clear: “As
we move into the new century, the experience with terrorism has
challenged both governments and disaster researchers. In the United
States, all levels of government have invested substantial resources
in emergency management, with much of that devoted to terrorism
consequence management. With the investment of resources,
governments expect more from the community of disaster
researchers. To answer such questions regarding the need for and
implementation of warning systems, appropriate mitigation
measures, tactics for response and recovery, researchers need to
have a firm grasp on what a disaster is and what it is not.”
There is no question 9/11 has become important in our struggle
to find an acceptable definition of disaster. Yet reading this book
made me reflect not so much on 9/ll and its significance but on
the agenda setting role of the mass media in determining what we
think about and write about. Everett Rogers and Rahul Sood raised
this issue when they discussed the way American media—in fact
most of the world’s media—ignored the Sahel drought. Phil Buckle
touches on it when he mentions the attention given to the heat
wave that led to 10,000 deaths in France in 2003. “There is now
[Buckle writes] broad acceptance at political and community levels
that heat waves are disasters. But heat waves have been with us
WHAT IS A DISASTER?
15
since time immemorial. So why the change now to move heat
wave from a weather condition to a disaster?” The role of media
possibly—but this begs the question—why were the media
interested? Why is heat wave now a disaster when a year ago it was
not? Eric Klinenberg’s book Heat Wave underlines the importance
of this question. Though the heat wave in Chicago costs more lives
than the Northridge earthquake, Hurricane Andrew or the bombing
at Oklahoma City, there were many debates in Chicago newsrooms
about its news value and whether it was truly a disaster. Certainly,
Barton makes clear that the absence of media attention explains
why some events have not become significant in our attempts to
explain how we perceive disaster:
Media coverage of human suffering in countries with
authoritarian regimes is subject to government censorship and
control of both domestic and outside news media. The outstanding
example is the largest famine in modern history in which
somewhere around 30,000,000 Chinese died in 1958-61 as a result
of Maoist mismanagement. The famine was kept secret within the
country and from the outside world, and indeed the highest levels
of government refused to accept information on it and continued
to demand extraction of food from the starving areas. Other examples
of “secret famines” come from the Stalinist dictatorship in the Soviet
Union. In the 1930s the government created the Ukraine famine
to wipe out peasant resistance to collectivization, and a similar
famine right after World War II, in both of which millions died
under conditions of secrecy and state terror. The British colonial
government imposed wartime censorship on the Bengal famine of
1943 in which over 2,000,000 died, to avoid pressure to divert
resources from the war effort. Around 3 million are estimated to
have died in the North Korean famines in the 1990s under
conditions of secrecy and suppression of information.
Strangely, I also thought of the media when I read Wolf
Dombrovsky’s story of the old Chinese tale about an Emperor.
“One day [the Emperor] asked his court artist, ‘What is easy to
paint and what is difficult to paint?’ The courtier thought hard on
this for as long as he knew his master’s tolerance would permit and
16
(EDITED BY) RONALD W. PERRY & E.L. QUARANTELLI
replied, ‘Dogs are difficult, but demons are easy.’ The courtier
explained further to his Emperor that obvious things are hard to
get right because everyone knows all about them and hence
everyone thinks they know what the essence of a dog is. However,
since no one has actually seen a demon then drawing one is easy,
because who can say it is not correct.”
I once did an examination of reporting textbooks and one thing
that became evident was that there is no accepted definition of the
term, “news.” In fact there was not only massive disagreement
among the authors about what the term meant a number simply
gave up on the task of definition. At the best they concluded,
“News is what an editor says it is,” a useful but not very illuminating
definition. We are, in short, not alone in struggling to define a
seemingly commonplace term. Yet the media seem sometimes to
force us into definitions that are adjusted to those events we know
or think we know.
All those who read this book will probably notice some references
more than others partly because of their own awareness of the
world. Just as this book stimulated me to think about the mass
media and the problems Journalism scholars have had with
definitions, others will think about other concerns. In that way,
this book will have achieved its goal—to make us think about
disaster. Ron Perry explains why that is important: “The variation
observed among researchers permits one to assess the extent and
the conceptual dimensions along which the field of study is growing
and changing. Second, the discussion of disaster definitions
encourages refinement of the concept of disaster. It enables the
reader and the authors to reflect on their definitions and trace
through the consequences of those definitions for different aspects
of the field of disaster study, whether academic or applied. As we
sharpen our conception of disaster, we identify the disciplinary
niches and their value in a field that is almost inherently
interdisciplinary. The extent to which we are able to identify and
manage disasters of the future is contingent upon our collective
understanding of the meaning and dimensions of the concept.”
In a way this book reflects the work of the first and third
WHAT IS A DISASTER?
17
generation of scholars in the field of disaster study. I am aware of
course that many consider the pioneer to be Samuel Henry Prince
with his study of the 1917 Halifax explosion. I am also aware of
the recent work Russ Dynes has done on Voltaire and Alexander
Pope and others and their appraisals of the significance of the 1775
Lisbon earthquake.
But I think all of us would agree that our field took off roughly
40 years ago with Russell Dynes and Henry Quarantelli and the
creation of the Disaster Research Center. One of their students
was Bill Anderson and one of his students at Arizona State University
was none other than Ron Perry. In fact—and I am relying on the
memory of others here—when Ron first became Bill’s student he
was the only undergraduate allowed into the graduate section of a
course on Collective Behavior. [He was also the best in the class.]
Historically, that means Ron became the first scholar in our field
to have been the student of a student of Russell Dynes and Henry
Quarantelli, in short our first third generation scholar. Now he
and Quarantelli have teamed up.
I noted the important contribution Henry Quarantelli has
made to our field in the foreword to the first version of What is a
Disaster? and was delighted to do so again at the celebration we
had for him and Russell Dynes at the DRC last spring. I have not
had the chance until now to say anything in writing about Ron
Perry. I first worked with Ron when he was in Seattle shortly after
Mount St. Helens but only got to know him well when I was
President of the International Research Committee on Disasters
and he was editor of the International Journal of Mass Emergencies
and Disasters. It was a wonderful relationship, one that makes me
not the least surprised to note how many scholars he has worked
with. Ron maintained his editorial independence and integrity
but at the same time was supportive. And when the time came for
him to move on we together were fortunate enough to be able to
choose a wonderful successor in Bob Stallings. But what most of
you will not know if that our relationship was defined not just by
mutual respect and goodwill but by a document—a written
definition of the role of the editor and the editor’s relationship to
18
(EDITED BY) RONALD W. PERRY & E.L. QUARANTELLI
the President of the IRCD. And that document—this should come
as no surprise—was written by none other than Henry Quarantelli.
I want to thank both Bob Stallings and Benigno Aguirre for allowing
me to stay on as general editor of this series of books because of the
opportunity it has given me to say thanks to both Henry and Ron
for their contributions to our field of which this book is only the
latest example.
INTRODUCTION
This volume represents the second book devoted to the issue
of definitions of disasters, and the first to deal with this to …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment