Browsing by Author "Quarantelli, E. L."
Now showing 1 - 20 of 237
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item An Agent Specific Or An All Disaster Spectrum Approach To Socio-Behavioral Apsects of Earthquakes?(Disaster Research Center, 1981) Quarantelli, E. L.Item Another Selective Look at Future Social Crises: Some Aspects of Which We Can Already See In The Present(Disaster Research Center, 2000) Quarantelli, E. L.Item An Assessment of Conflicting Views on the Consequences of Community Disasters for Mental Health(Disaster Research Center, 1984) Quarantelli, E. L.Item Behavior In Disaster And Implications For The Insurance Industry(Disaster Research Center, 1992) Dynes, Russell R.; Quarantelli, E. L.Item The Behavior of First Responders and Their Initial Definitions of Acute Chemical Emergencies(Disaster Research Center, 1983-10) Quarantelli, E. L.; Gray, JaneItem A Brief Note on Disaster Restoration, Reconstruction and Recovery: A Comparative Note Using Post Earthquake Observations(Disaster Research Center, 2008) Dynes, Russell R.; Quarantelli, E. L.Twenty general observations about disaster restoration, reconstruction and recovery are presented with attention primarily on what happens after earthquakes. Generalizations were derived from the empirical literature on post impact periods of disasters. The overall conclusion is that disaster reconstruction is part of the more general process of recovery, which in turn is rooted in the social structure of the impacted society.Item Can And Should Social Science Disaster Reserch Knowledge And Findings From Developed Societies Be Applied In Developing Societies(Disaster Research Center, 1992) Quarantelli, E. L.We consider the extent to which social science research findings about disasters primarily derived from developed countries can and should be applied in developing societies. It is first noted that the conceptual distinction made between developed and developing social systems may lead to an underestimation of the existing capabilities for preparing for and responding to disasters in developing nations. We then note general differences between organizational structures in developed and developing societies, because organizations everywhere are the prime actors in disaster preparedness and response. However, most of the paper discusses six major observations with respect to the extent to which empirically based research findings about the behavior of organizations in highly urbanized and industrialized societies can be extrapolated to or applied in developing social systems. We conclude that it is not a matter of either/or, and that there are certain social features in developing societies which might lessen the necessity of importing disaster social technology from developed countries.Item The Characteristics of Catastrophes and Their Social Evolution: An Exploratory Analysis of Implications for Crisis Policies and Emergency Management Procedures(Disaster Research Center, 2008) Barnshaw, John; Letukas, Lynn; Quarantelli, E. L.Disaster and crisis researchers and theorists have struggled for more than half a century trying to define and conceptualize their central object of study. The very first team of social science “disaster” researchers was put together in 1950 at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. One of its first collective products was a definition of “disaster”. It came to be known as the Fritz definition, named after the original writer of the concept. It advanced the notion that a disaster was an event concentrated in time and space, in which a society or one its subdivisions undergo physical harm and social disruption, such that all or some essential functions are impaired (Fritz, 1961 although his earliest written versions go as far back as Fritz, Gorden, Krauss and Quarantelli, 1950; Fritz, 1952). The definition was widely used in the literature (and still is to some extent even today), but by the 1970s it started to be modified as well as replaced by other formulations (see Quarantelli, 1982 for seven different major conceptions that had emerged by the early 1980s; see also Perry, 2007 for a very good and up-to-date discussion of changes in the current conceptualization of the term “disaster”). One of the earliest and ever present criticism was that while there always has been an implicit recognition that the term was used to cover a wide range of phenomena, there nevertheless had been a strong tendency to label everything within that range, “disasters” (see examples by different theorists in Quarantelli, 1998; Cutter, 2002; Perry and Quarantelli, 2005). However, in recent years, there has been an increasing explicit call to separate out everyday disasters from mega disasters or catastrophes. Any even rather surface observation will, for example, conclude that a tornado which only impacts a single neighborhood in a metropolitan area is simply a qualitatively different social phenomenon than a tsunami such as the one in 2004 in the Indian Ocean that impacted hundreds of communities in at least a dozen nation states that were thousands of miles apart. The need to develop a meaningful distinction has not only been pushed by theorists interested in researching disasters, but also by operational personnel, emergency planners and management trainers in educational institutions (e.g., in March 2008 the FEMA National Training Center at Emmitsburg developed a course for its own use on Catastrophe Readiness and Response where the first session was entitled “Definitions, Background and Differences Between Disasters and Catastrophes”, see Blanchard, 2008). The Public Entity Risk Institute published in 2008 the proceedings of an earlier conference where experts from industry wrote papers on what had been learned for practice and teaching from the Hurricane Katrina mega disaster (see PERI, 2008). In addition, from a policy viewpoint, that hurricane became the subject of numerous US Congressional hearings which struggled to try and see in what way that occasion was different from prior collective crises that had affected American society. For example, the US House Homeland Security Committee concluded that the Department of Homeland Security had strengthened the wrong policy of federalizing the response to a possible “major U.S. catastrophe” (McNeil, 2008:1). Outside of the United States, reconsideration of what might be new was also triggered by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which led many bureaucratic and governmental leaders elsewhere in the world to ask whether different crisis management policies needed to be considered (it did lead to the initiation of a multi-nation Indian Ocean tsunami warning system similar to what has existed for decades in the Pacific, modifications in the national warning system in Japan for tsunami, and changes in planning in some European countries how mass casualties in collective crises would be handled in the future). Our intention is to contribute to this ongoing dialogue. In the words of the title and subtitle to this paper, we intend to say first of all something relevant about the characteristics of catastrophes, including why we single them out for attention. After that we address the implications these characteristics have for crisis policies and emergency management. The paper concludes with a discussion of the social evolution of the phenomena of catastrophes from the past to the present and likely changes in the future. Hopefully, our contribution will not only be in what substantively we say, but also in how we went about developing our observations, not all of which were reached by standard orthodox procedures.Item Characteristics of Citizen Groups Which Emerge With Respect to Hazardous Waste Sites(Disaster Research Center, 1988) Quarantelli, E. L.Item Citizen Groups And Hazardous Waste: Their Careers And Conditions For Emergence(Disaster Research Center, 1987) Quarantelli, E. L.Item Citizen Groups and Hazardous Waste: Their Careers and Conditions for Emergence(Disaster Research Center, 1987) Quarantelli, E. L.Item Civil Protection, The New Technologies And Higher Education(Disaster Research Center, 2000) Quarantelli, E. L.Item The Command Post Point Of View In The Local Mass Communication System(Disaster Research Center, 1975) Quarantelli, E. L.Item Comments on the Integration of Civil Defense into Local Government(Disaster Research Center, 1967) Quarantelli, E. L.Statement prepared on March 21, 1967 as member of the National Academy of Sciences Advisory Committee on Civil Defense.Item Community And Organizational Preparations For And Responses To Acute Chemical Emergencies And Disasters In the United States: Research Findings And Their Wider Applicability(Disaster Research Center, 1987) Quarantelli, E. L.Item Community Conflict: Its Absence and its Presence in Natural Disasters(Disaster Research Center, 1971-03) Dynes, Russell R.; Quarantelli, E. L.Item Community Conflict: Its Absence and Its Presence In Natural Disasters(Disaster Research Center, 1975) Dynes, Russell R.; Quarantelli, E. L.Item Community Crises: A Comparison Of The Characteristics And Consequences Of Disasters And Riots(Disaster Research Center, 1992) Quarantelli, E. L.Item Community Response To Disasters(1985) Quarantelli, E. L.; Dynes, Russell R.Item The Computer Based Information/Communication Revolution: A Dozen Problematical Issues And Questions They Raise For Disaster Planning And Managing(Disaster Research Center, 1998) Quarantelli, E. L.