Search results

This case study explores the challenges encountered in undertaking a qualitative study of Brisbane residents who experienced the 2011 flood. The case study provides an overview of the research design and then steps the reader through a variety of theoretical considerations and logistical issues encountered by the author in the process of completing the research. The case study provides a reflection on the experience of translating research ethics to practice, when the consideration of ethics literature ceases to be about getting an ethics approval and becomes the tools to navigate your personal interaction with your subjects. The case touches on the emotional impact on the researcher of conducting research and how reflective practice is a critical tool to inform ethical behavior. Finally, the case study presents the autho?s personal observations about how to balance the process of researching against concerns of exploiting subjects, finding that empathy and empathetic practice provide a bridge between ethics in the abstract and the practice of interviewing real people.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to recover the narratives constructed by the disaster management policy network in Washington, DC, about the management of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. Recovering and analysing these narratives provides an opportunity to understand the stories constructed about these events and consider the implications of this framing for post-event learning and adaptation of government policy.Design/methodology/approachThis research was conducted through an extended ethnographic study in Washington, DC, that incorporated field observation, qualitative interviews and desktop research.FindingsThe meta-narratives recovered through this research point to a collective tendency to fit the experiences of Hurricane Katrina and Sandy into a neatly constructed redemption arc. This narrative framing poses significant risk to policy learning and highlights the importance of exploring counter-narratives as part of the policy analysis process.Research limitations/implicationsThe narratives in this paper reflect the stories and beliefs of the participants interviewed. As such, it is inherently subjective and should not be generalised. Nonetheless, it is illustrative of how narrative framing can obscure important learnings from disasters.Originality/valueThe paper represents a valuable addition to the field of disaster management policy analysis. It extends the tools of narrative analysis and administrative ethnography into the disaster management policy domain and demonstrates how these techniques can be used to analyse complex historical events.

AbstractThe paper explores how subjective risk perception intersects with government disaster management policy that is premised on an objective approach to risk assessment and mitigation. It finds that the presumption of objective risk management underpinning government policy is fundamentally at odds with community risk perceptions. This paper applies the techniques of ethnographic study to explore how communities understand and frame risk narratives. Using qualitative methods, the paper constructs the risk narratives of residents of Rocklea, Brisbane, following their experience with the 2011 Brisbane Flood. These risk narratives are considered in light of the Australian National Strategy for Disaster Resilience and recommendations are accordingly made for government disaster management policy.

Within Australia's federal system, responsibility for preventing, preparing for, responding to and recovering from natural disasters is shared between the three tiers of government. Intergovernmental policy and funding arrangements are premised on shared responsibility and aim to foster individual, business and community resilience. These arrangements underpin Australia's international reputation for effectiveness in its management of natural disasters. The capacity of the diverse networks that comprise the disaster management system to coordinate and deliver in the preparedness and response phases of a disaster, and to provide relief in the immediate aftermath, has been developed over time and tested and refined through the experience of frequent, severe disaster events over recent decades. Less well developed is the system's ability to support economic recovery in disaster-affected communities over the longer term. This paper presents case studies of regional communities affected by two of Australia's most expensive and deadly natural disasters—the 2009 Victorian bushfires and the cyclones and floods that struck the state of Queensland in 2010–2011. It highlights significant gaps in policy and funding arrangements to support recovery and offers lessons for aligning recovery within a resilience framework.

Within Australia's federal system, responsibility for preventing, preparing for, responding to and recovering from natural disasters is shared between the three tiers of government. Intergovernmental policy and funding arrangements are premised on shared responsibility and aim to foster individual, business and community resilience. These arrangements underpin Australia's international reputation for effectiveness in its management of natural disasters. The capacity of the diverse networks that comprise the disaster management system to coordinate and deliver in the preparedness and response phases of a disaster, and to provide relief in the immediate aftermath, has been developed over time and tested and refined through the experience of frequent, severe disaster events over recent decades. Less well developed is the system's ability to support economic recovery in disaster-affected communities over the longer term. This paper presents case studies of regional communities affected by two of Australia's most expensive and deadly natural disasters—the 2009 Victorian bushfires and the cyclones and floods that struck the state of Queensland in 2010–2011. It highlights significant gaps in policy and funding arrangements to support recovery and offers lessons for aligning recovery within a resilience framework.