Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
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.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
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. CrossRef
Alexander, D. (1993). Natural disasters. London/New York: UCL Press and Chapman & Hall.
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.
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
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. CrossRef
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.
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. CrossRef
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.
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.
Couch, S. R., & Kroll-Smith, J. S. (1985). Chronic technical disaster: Toward a social scientific perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 564–575.
Fleischman, A. R., & Wood, E. B. (2002). Ethical issues research involving victims of terror. Journal of Urban Health, 79(3), 317–318. CrossRef
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.
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.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Haggerty, K. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414. CrossRef
Hamburger, P. (2007). Getting permission. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 405–492.
Kelman, I. (2005). Operational ethics for disaster research. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 23(3), 141–158.
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.
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.
Kendra, J., & Wachtendorf, T. (2016). American Dunkirk. The waterborne evacuation of Manhattan on 9/11. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
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.
Levine, C. (2004). The concept of vulnerability in disaster research. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 395–402. CrossRef
Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(1), 11–21. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.
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.
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
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. CrossRef
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.
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. CrossRef
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.
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.
Norris, F. H., Galea, S., Friedman, M. J., & Watson, P. J. (2006). Methods for disaster mental health research. New York: Gilford Press.
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. CrossRef
O’Mathúna, D. (2012). Roles and challenges with IRBs with disaster research. Research Practitioner, 13(5), 167–174.
Paton, D. (2003). Disaster preparedness: A social-cognitive perspective. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 210–216. CrossRef
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.
Peek, L. A., & Sutton, J. N. (2003). An exploratory comparison of disasters, riots and terrorist acts. Disasters, 27(4), 319–335. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.
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.
Rosenstein, D. L. (2004). Decision-making capacity and disaster research. Journal Traumatic Stress, 17, 373–381. CrossRef
Schrag, Z. (2014). Institutional review blog. www.institutionalreviewblog.com
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. CrossRef
Stark, L. (2007). Victims in our own minds? IRBs in myth and practice. Law & Society Review, 41(4), 777–786. CrossRef
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.
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.
Walker, E. A., Newman, E., Koss, M., & Bernstein, D. (1997). Does the study of victimization revictimize the victims? General Hospital Psychiatry, 19, 403–410. CrossRef
Weinberg, A. M. (1985). Science and its limits: The regulator’s dilemma. Issues in Science and Technology, 2(1), 59–72.
Weinstein, J. (2007). Institutional review boards and the constitution. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 493–562.
- Ethics in Disaster Research: A New Declaration