Advertisement

Ethics in Disaster Research: A New Declaration

  • James KendraEmail author
  • Sarah Gregory
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Hazards book series (ENHA)

Abstract

The opening chapter in this volume portrayed the growing urgency of disaster research, as the nature and scope of hazards shift. People already familiar with their local environment may find that a changing climate changes their risk for certain kinds of hazards (Relf, G., Kendra, J. M., Schwartz, R. M., Leathers, D. J., & Levia, D. F. (2015). Slushflows: Science and planning considerations for an expanding hazard. Natural Hazards, 78(1), 333–354). People moving from place to place in search of better jobs or housing may move into a hazard milieu that is new to them. Political transformations with an authoritarian bent will probably increase vulnerability amongst populations already at greater risk for experiencing a disaster and for recovering more slowly, such as those in poor housing, those with chronic illnesses, and those with Functional and Access Needs. Robust research is needed, but some critics have emerged to challenge the practice and propriety of disaster research, especially quick-response research. This chapter argues for an affirmative right to conduct research.

Keywords

Disaster research ethics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The “Workshop on Deploying Post-Disaster Quick-Response Reconnaissance Teams: Methods, Strategies, and Needs” was supported by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation. Rochelle Brittingham, Lauren Clay, and Kimberly Gill assisted in the organization and implementation of the workshop. The views presented in this chapter are solely those of the authors.

References

  1. Aguirre, B., Dynes, R. R., Kendra, J., & Connell, R. (2005). Institutional resilience and disaster planning for new Hazards: Insights from hospitals. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, D. (1993). Natural disasters. London/New York: UCL Press and Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (1997). Final report: American Psychological Association task force on the mental health response to the Oklahoma City bombing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  4. Auf der Heide, E. (1989). Disaster response: Principles of preparation and coordination. Retrieved June 6, 2013, from http://www.coe-dmha.org/Media/DisasterResponsePrincipals.pdf
  5. Beaven, S., Wilson, T., Johnston, L., Johnston, D., & Smith, R. (2016). Research engagement after disasters: Research coordination before, during, and after the 2011–2012 Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand. Earthquake Spectra, 32(2), 713–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bledsoe, C. H., Sherin, B., Galinsky, A. G., Headley, N. M., Heimer, C. A., Kjeldgaard, E., Lindgren, J. T., Miller, J. D., Roloff, M. E., & Uttal, D. H. (2007). Regulating creativity: Research and survival in the IRB Iron Cage. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 593–642.Google Scholar
  7. Boscarino, J. A., Figley, C. R., Adams, R. E., Galea, S., Resnick, H. S., Fleischman, A. R., Bucuvalas, M., & Gold, J. (2004). Adverse reactions associated with studying persons recently exposed to mass urban disaster. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192, 515–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Browne, K. E., & Peek, L. (2014). Beyond the IRB: An ethical toolkit for long-term disaster research. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 32(1), 82–120.Google Scholar
  9. Citraningtyas, T., MacDonald, E., & Herrman, H. (2010). A second tsunami?: The ethics of coming into communities following disaster. Asian Bioethics Review, 2(2), 108–123.Google Scholar
  10. Couch, S. R., & Kroll-Smith, J. S. (1985). Chronic technical disaster: Toward a social scientific perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 564–575.Google Scholar
  11. Fleischman, A. R., & Wood, E. B. (2002). Ethical issues research involving victims of terror. Journal of Urban Health, 79(3), 317–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleischman, A. R., Collogan, L., & Tuma, F. (2006). Ethical issues in disaster research. In F. H. Norris, S. Galea, M. J. Friedman, & P. J. Watson (Eds.), Methods for disaster mental health research (pp. 78–92). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foa, E. B., Stein, D. J., & McFarlane, A. C. (2006). Symptomatology and psychopathology of mental health problems after disaster. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67(2), 15–25.Google Scholar
  14. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaillard, J. C., & Gomez, C. (2015). Post-disaster research: Is there gold worth the rush?: Opinion paper. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 7(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haggerty, K. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamburger, P. (2007). Getting permission. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 405–492.Google Scholar
  18. Kelman, I. (2005). Operational ethics for disaster research. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 23(3), 141–158.Google Scholar
  19. Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003a). Elements of resilience after the World Trade Center disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s Emergency Operations Center. Disasters, 27(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003b). Reconsidering convergence and convergence legitimacy in response to the World Trade Center disaster. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 11, 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T. (2005, April 5–9). Storming the barricades: Post-disaster convergence as locational conflict. Presented at the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, Denver.Google Scholar
  22. Kendra, J., & Wachtendorf, T. (2007). Improvisation, creativity, and the art of emergency management. In H. Durmaz, B. Sevinc, A. S. Yayla, S. Ekici (Eds.), Understanding and responding to terrorism (NATO Security through Science Series E: Human and Societal Dynamics, vol. 19, pp. 324–335). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kendra, J., & Wachtendorf, T. (2016). American Dunkirk. The waterborne evacuation of Manhattan on 9/11. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Killian, L. M. (1956). An introduction to methodological problems of field studies in disasters. A special report prepared for the Committee on Disaster Studies (Disaster Study Number 8 of Committee on Disaster Studies, Division of Anthropology and Psychology). Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  25. Levine, C. (2004). The concept of vulnerability in disaster research. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(1), 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall, B., Picou, J., & Gill, D. A. (2003). Terrorism as disaster: Selected commonalities and long–term recovery for 9/11 survivors. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 11, 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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). Boulder: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? People’s park, definitions of the public, and democracy. The Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85, 108–133.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, D. (2003). The liberalization of free speech: Or, how protest in public space is silenced. Stanford Agora. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from http://agora.stanford.edu/agora/volume4/articles/mitchell/mitchell.pdf
  31. Mitchell, J. K. (2006). The primacy of partnership: Scoping a new national disaster recovery policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 228–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (2014). Proposed revisions to the common rule for the protection of human subjects in the behavioral and social sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. Newman, E., & Kaloupek, D. G. (2004). The risks and benefits of participating in trauma-focused research studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(5), 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nigg, J. M. (1995). Disaster recovery as a social process. Wellington after the quake: The challenge of rebuilding (pp. 81–92). Wellington: The Earthquake Commission.Google Scholar
  35. Norris, F. H., & Elrod, C. L. (2006). Psychosocial consequences of disaster: A review of past research. In F. H. Norris, S. Galea, M. J. Friedman, & P. J. Watson (Eds.), Methods for disaster mental health research (pp. 20–42). London: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  36. Norris, F. H., Galea, S., Friedman, M. J., & Watson, P. J. (2006). Methods for disaster mental health research. New York: Gilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. North, C. S., Pfefferbaum, B., & Tucker, P. (2002). Ethical and methodological issues in academic mental health research in populations affected by disasters: Oklahoma City experience relevant to September 11, 2011. CNS Spectrums, 7, 580–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Mathúna, D. (2012). Roles and challenges with IRBs with disaster research. Research Practitioner, 13(5), 167–174.Google Scholar
  39. Paton, D. (2003). Disaster preparedness: A social-cognitive perspective. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 210–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peacock, W. G., & Ragsdale, K. (2000). Social systems, ecological networks and disasters: Toward a socio-political ecology of disasters. In W. G. Peacock, B. H. Morrow, & H. Gladwin (Eds.), Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, gender and the sociology of disasters (pp. 20–35). Miami: Laboratory for Social and Behavioral Research Florida International University Miami Florida.Google Scholar
  41. Peek, L. A., & Sutton, J. N. (2003). An exploratory comparison of disasters, riots and terrorist acts. Disasters, 27(4), 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Qureshi, K. A., Gershon, R. R., Smailes, E., Raveis, V. H., Murphy, B., Matzner, F., & Fleischman, A. R. (2007). Roadmap for the protection of disaster research participants: Findings from the World Trade Center evacuation study. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 22(6), 486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Relf, G., Kendra, J. M., Schwartz, R. M., Leathers, D. J., & Levia, D. F. (2015). Slushflows: Science and planning considerations for an expanding hazard. Natural Hazards, 78(1), 333–354.Google Scholar
  44. Restrepo, C., & Zimmerman, R. (2003). Learning from urban disasters. In Beyond September 11th: An account of post-disaster research (Special Publication No. 39). Boulder: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  45. Rosenstein, D. L. (2004). Decision-making capacity and disaster research. Journal Traumatic Stress, 17, 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schrag, Z. (2014). Institutional review blog. www.institutionalreviewblog.com
  47. Stallings, R. A. (2007). Methodological issues. In H. Rodriguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 55–82). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stark, L. (2007). Victims in our own minds? IRBs in myth and practice. Law & Society Review, 41(4), 777–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. State of Texas. (2007). Partial action plan for disaster recovery to use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to assist with the recovery of distressed areas related to the consequences of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005. Austin, Texas: Division of Policy and Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  50. Tierney, K. (2002). The field turns fifty: Social change and the practice of disaster fieldwork. In R. Stallings (Ed.), Methods of disaster research (pp. 349–374). Philadelphia: Xlibris.Google Scholar
  51. Walker, E. A., Newman, E., Koss, M., & Bernstein, D. (1997). Does the study of victimization revictimize the victims? General Hospital Psychiatry, 19, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weinberg, A. M. (1985). Science and its limits: The regulator’s dilemma. Issues in Science and Technology, 2(1), 59–72.Google Scholar
  53. Weinstein, J. (2007). Institutional review boards and the constitution. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 493–562.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Disaster Research Center and Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy and AdministrationUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations