Methodological Issues in Disaster Research

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

With regard to the design of research protocols, the field of disaster studies encounters challenges other fields of inquiry do not routinely face. Following a brief historical outline of the field, the chapter moves on to discuss these challenges, which often appear in the context of quick-response research and affect a range of planning and design issues, including, but not limited to, human subjects planning, sample design, measurement, and analysis. In addition to methodological issues in the field, the chapter also discusses advances in statistical analysis and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) that offer means to address common sampling and measurement issues in disaster research. Finally, a section on interdisciplinary research offers a description of multidisciplinary approaches to answering scientific questions, noting both the advantages and potential problems of collaboration across the disciplines. The chapter closes with a description of future trends and issues that may become relevant within the coming decades.

Keywords

Multilevel modeling Geographic information systems (GIS) Interdisciplinary research Human subjects Measurement in disaster research 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Babbie, E. (2014). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  2. Barron Ausbrooks, C. Y., Barrett, E. J., & Martinez-Cosio, M. (2009). Ethical issues in disaster research: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Population Research and Policy Review, 28(1), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton, A. H. (1969). Communities in disaster: A sociological analysis of collective stress situations. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgart, L., Bass, E. J., Philips, B., & Kloesel, K. (2008). Emergency management decision making during severe weather. Weather and Forecasting, 23, 1268–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne, K., & 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
  6. Bourque, L., Shoaf, K., & Nguyen, L. (1997). Survey research. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 15(1), 71–101.Google Scholar
  7. Borden, K., & Cutter, S. L. (2008). Spatial patterns of natural hazard mortality in the United States. International Journal of Health Geographics., 7, 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collogan, L. K., Tuma, F., Dolan-Sewell, R., Borja, S., & Fleischman, A. R. (2004). Ethical issues pertaining to research in the aftermath of disaster. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(5), 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cappock, J. T. (1995). GIS and natural hazards: An overview from a GIS perspective. In A. Carrara & F. Guzzetti (Eds.), Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards (pp. 21–34). Kluwer: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2004). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (p. 2). Washington: National Academy Press, National Academies.Google Scholar
  11. Cutter, S., Boruff, B., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dash, N. (1997). The use of geographical information systems in disaster research. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 15(1), 135–146.Google Scholar
  13. Donner, W. (2007). The political ecology of disaster: An analysis of factors influencing U.S. tornado fatalities and injuries, 1998–2000. Demography, 44(3), 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donner, W., Rodriguez, H., & Diaz, W. (2012). Tornado warnings in three southern states. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 9(2), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Domino, S., Smith, Y., & Johnson, T. (2007). Opportunities and challenges of interdisciplinary research career development: Implementation of a women’s health research training program. Journal of Women’s Health, 16(2), 256–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dynes, R. (2000). The dialogue between Voltaire and Rousseau in the Lisbon earthquake: The emergence of a social science view. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 18(1), 97–115.Google Scholar
  17. Dynes, R. (1970). Organized behavior in disasters. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
  18. Drabek, T. (2012). Human system responses to disaster: An inventory of sociological findings. NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Drabek, T. (1968). Disaster in aisle 13. College of Administrative Science. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  20. Erikson, K. (1976). Everything in its path: Destruction of Buffalo Creek. NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  21. Feinberg, W., & Johnson, N. (2010). FIRESCAP: A computer simulation model of reaction to a fire alarm. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 20(2–3), 247–269.Google Scholar
  22. Fekete, A. (2012). Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: Challenges in their quality and acceptance. Natural Hazards, 61(3), 1161–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fekete A. (2010). Assessment of social vulnerability to river-floods in Germany. Graduate Series (4). United Nations University—Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), Bonn.Google Scholar
  24. Ferreira, R., Buttell, F., & Ferreira, S. (2015). Ethical considerations for conducting disaster research with vulnerable populations. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 12(1), 29–40.Google Scholar
  25. Fischer, H. (2008). Response to disaster: Fact versus fiction and its perpetuation (3rd ed.) University Press of America.Google Scholar
  26. Fischer, H., & Drain, E. (1993). Local offices of emergency preparedness (LEMA) belief in disaster mythology: What has changed and why? The International Journal of Disaster Prevention and Management, 2(3), 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fritz, C., & Marks, E. (1954). The NORC studies of human behavior in disaster. The Journal of Social Issues, 10(3), 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fritz, C. E. (1961). Disasters. In R. K. Merton & R. A. Nisbet (Eds.), Contemporary social problems (pp. 651–694). New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  29. Fothergill, A., Maestas, E., & Darlington, J. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and disasters in the United States: A review of the literature. Disasters, 23(2), 156–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gentile, G. (2000). How effective is strategic bombing?. NY: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  31. Goodchild, M., & Glennon, A. (2010). Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3(3), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greene, R. W. (2002). Confronting catastrophe: A GIS handbook. New York, NY: ESRI Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kelman, I. (2005). Operational ethics for disaster research. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 23(3), 141–158.Google Scholar
  34. Knack, J., Chen, Z., Williams, K., & Jensen-Campbell, L. (2006). Opportunities and challenges for studying disaster survivors. Analysis of Social Issues and Social Policy, 6(1), 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuligowski, E., & Gwynne, S. (2008). The need for behavioral theory in evacuation modeling. In W. W. F. Klingsch, C. Rogsch, A. Schadschneider, & M. Schreckenberg (Eds.), Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics (pp. 721–732). NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Kyne, D. (2015). Managing nuclear power plant inducted disasters. Journal of Emergency Management, 13(5), 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of resilience after the world trade center disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s emergency operations centre. Disasters, 27(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. King, G., & Nielson, R. (2016). Why propensity scores should not be used for matching (Unpublished manuscript). Harvard University. Accessed on June 19, 2017.Google Scholar
  39. Lach, D. (2014). Challenges of interdisciplinary research: reconciling qualitative and quantitative methods for understanding human-landscape systems. Environmental Management, 53(1), 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lavin, R. P., Schemmel-Rettenmeier, L., & Frommelt-Kuhle, M. (2012). Conducting research during disasters. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 30(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laituri, M., & Kodrich, K. (2008). Online disaster response community: People as sensors of high magnitude disasters using GIS. Sensors, 8(5), 3037–3055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (1992). Behavioral foundations of community emergency planning. Bristol, PA: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  44. Lin, H. (2014). Governing natural disasters: State capacity, democracy, and human vulnerability. Social Forces, 93(3), 1267–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lowe, S., Sampson, L., Gruebner, O., & Galea, S. (2015). Psychological resilience after hurricane sandy: The influence of individual- and community-level factors on mental health after a large-scale natural disaster. PLoS ONE, 10(5), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mileti, D. S., & Sorensen, J. H. (1990). Communication of emergency public warnings: A social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2011). Rebuilding the mosaic. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  48. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health (NIH-NIMH). (2007). Ethical issues to consider in developing, evaluating, and conducting research post-disaster. Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/funding/grant-writing-and-applicationprocess/ethical-issues-to-consider-in-developing-evaluating-and-conducting-research-post-disaster.shtml.
  49. North, C., & Norris, F. (2006). Choosing research methods to match research goals in studies of disaster and terrorism. In F. Norris, S. Galea, M. Friedman, & P. Watson (Eds.), Methods for disaster mental health in research (pp. 45–61). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  50. Norris, F. (2006). Disaster research methods: Past progress and future directions. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(2), 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K., & Wisner, B. (1976). Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature, 260, 566–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perry, R. (2006). What is a disaster. In H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, & R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 1–15). NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Peacock, W., Van Zandt, S., Henry, D., Grover, H., & Highfield, W. (2012). Social vulnerability and Hurricane Ike: Using Social vulnerability mapping to enhance coastal community resilience in Texas. In P. Bedient (Ed.), After Ike: Severe storm prediction, impact, and recovery on the Texas Gulf Coast, (pp. 66–81). College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Phillips, B. (2014). Qualitative disaster research. New York, NY: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Phillips, B. (1997). Qualitative methods and disaster research. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 15(1), 179–195.Google Scholar
  56. Prince, S. H. (1920). Catastrophe and social change. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  57. Quarantelli, E. L. (1987a). 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(3), 285–310.Google Scholar
  58. Quarantelli, E. L. (1987b). What should we study? Questions and suggestions for researchers about the concept of disasters. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 5(1), 7–32.Google Scholar
  59. Quarantelli, E. L. (1998). Epilogue. In What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question (pp. 234–273). London and NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Ruben, D., Hackett, J.; Bezhad, L., Gross, A., & Lanier, G. (2011). Social science research in action. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center (NORC), University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  61. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (3rd ed.). Stata Press.Google Scholar
  62. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science, 306(5704), 2046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rodriguez, H., Diaz, W., Donner, W., Santos, J., & Marks, D. (2005). Allocation of radar resources and policy implications: The end-user community in Oklahoma. ERC-CASA End-User Integration Research Brief No. 3, Disaster Research Center, Newark, DE.Google Scholar
  65. SAMSHA. (2016). Disaster technical assistance center supplemental research bulletin: Challenges and considerations in disaster research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  66. Scanlon, T. J. (2002). Rewriting a living legend: Researching the 1917 Halifax explosion. In R. A. Stallings (Ed.), Methods of disaster research (pp. 266–301). Philadelphia: Xlibris.Google Scholar
  67. Stallings, R. (2007). Methodological issues. In H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, & R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 55–82). NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  68. Stallings, R. (1997). Sociological theories and disaster studies. Inaugural Distinguished Lecture on Risk and Disaster, University of Delaware, Department of Sociology, Disaster Research Center, April 1997.Google Scholar
  69. Stallings, R. (1990). Media discourse and the social construction of risk. Social Problems, 37(1), 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scanlon, J. (1988). Disaster’s little known pioneer: Canada’s Samuel Henry prince. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disaster, 6(3), 213–232.Google Scholar
  71. Singer, J. D., & Willet, J. B. (2003). Applied longintudinal analysis. Don Mills, ON: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Spielvogel, J. (2012). Western civilization (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  73. Thomas, D., Etugay, K., & Kemec, S. (2007). The role of geographic information systems/remote sensing in disaster management. In H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, & R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 83–96). NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. Thomas, D. S. K. (2001). Data, data everywhere, but can we really use them? In S. L. Cutter (Ed.), American hazardscapes. Washington, D.C: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  75. Turner, R., & Killian, L. (1957). Collective behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  76. Tierney, K., Christine, B., & Erica, K. (2006). Metaphors matter: Disaster myths, media frames, and their consequences in Hurricane Katrina. The Annals of the American Academy, 604(1), 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Texas Rio Grande ValleyEdinburgUSA

Personalised recommendations