Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to deconstruct the current discourse on researcher positionality in disaster research and it aims to enhance disaster researchers' reflexivity, using Bourdieu's capital, field and habitus theories.Design/methodology/approachThis conceptual paper relies on secondary literature from empirical and theoretical works and incorporates critical self-reflection from author's own research experience.FindingsAs Bourdieu would argue, one's habitus is interactive and responsive to contexts (field and other agents' habitus and capital), thus reflexivity requires more than the acknowledgement of one's ascribed and achieved social characteristics. Bourdieu's theories help disaster researchers enhance their reflexivity and better understand the nature of researcher positionality: contextual, dynamic and negotiated.Originality/valueThis research provides a critical and theoretical discussion of researcher positionality in disaster research. Drawing from Bourdieu's theories, researcher positionality can be framed in relation to not only researcher's structurally differentiated insider–outsider status but also how interactions with the research participants and contexts in which the research is conducted influence that positionality.

This short commentary is intended to open a further discussion on diversity in Denmark, particularly in response to the announcement made by the Minister of Interior and Housing, Kaare Dybvad Bek, in 2021 regarding Denmark's plan to restrict the number of 'non-Western/non-White' residents in any neighbourhoods to avoid 'parallel societies'. This news was not surprising yet still disturbing, especially considering the recent taxi law requiring taxi drivers to speak Danish, along with migration, ethnicity and education research communities being accused of 'pseudo-scientific' research. In order to move toward a forward-thinking, socially inclusive, multicultural, sustainable and just society, I comment not only on the recent (re)surge of racism and 'resistance to diversity' but also on higher education's stand and social scientists' role in addressing these issues in Denmark, wider Europe and beyond.

ObjectiveThis article discusses the methodological challenges in social vulnerability and resilience research I encountered while conducting qualitative research on immigrants' and refugees' experiences in disasters.MethodsThese challenges and issues will be critically analyzed based on my reflections and social capital theory.ResultsThis article highlights the institutional practices, linguistic barriers, timing, and issues of overstudying and overrepresentation. These challenges led to a critical methodological and theoretical question: Are we really reaching out to the socially vulnerable? Notably, those with higher social capital demonstrate stronger resilience. Such "success stories" are widely known, which raises a concern for disaster researchers: Is this because researchers typically have limited access channels and more easily connect with these resilient communities?ConclusionDue to their and researchers' own lack of social capital, some groups and individuals are relatively understudied, despite the fact that researchers could learn a great deal from their disaster experience.

Abstract
During/after disasters, language communication (or the lack thereof) can be a matter of life or death, particularly for "Indigenous/Tribal, Minority and Minoritized languages and peoples" (ITMs). Disaster and language studies have identified language barriers as critical because some ITMs do not understand basic risk communication, evacuation warnings, and recovery information. There are three major approaches to lowering these barriers in disaster contexts: (1) disseminating warnings and critical information in multilingual formats; (2) using bi/multilingual translators/interpreters and automated translator; and (3) using simplified language(s). However, this top–down approach is insufficient because ITMs need more than just selective information to cope with adversities. The basic communication rights to know, "talk about it," and express one's feelings after a traumatic event should not be a taken-for-granted privilege for speakers of the majority languages. The root causes of disaster linguicism, which focuses on the unique social vulnerabilities confronted by ITMs, have not been properly addressed. Drawing from our qualitative research, this article explores the role of Japanese language ideology in relation to the experiences of ITMs in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.

AbstractDisaster scholars have long complained that their field is theory light: they are much better at doing and saying than analyzing. The paucity of theory doubtless reflects an understandable focus on case studies and practical solutions. Yet this works against big picture thinking. Consequently, both our comprehension of social suffering and our ability to mitigate it are fragmented. Communitas is exemplary here. This refers to the improvisational acts of mutual help, collective feeling and utopian desires that emerge in the wake of disasters. It has been observed for as long as there has been a sociology of disasters. Within the field, there have been numerous efforts to name and describe it. Yet there has been far less enthusiasm to theorize it, which means that the disaster literature has not adequately explained the social conditions under which communitas arises (or fails to). In this article, we synthesize numerous case studies to do so. This takes us beyond simple statements of what communitas is and what it should be called, to considerations of the conditions under which it emerges, how it should be conceptualized, the factors that might prevent communitas, and how we might encourage it. While primarily a theoretical work, the identification of communitas' facilitators and barriers have practical import for disaster risk reduction (DRR) policy as communitas has frequently proven to be a positive and potent force.

PurposeThe authors' aim in this commentary is to critically assess the potential benefits and limitations of collaborative autoethnography (CAE) as a research tool to be used by qualitative researchers during this unprecedented, methodologically challenging time when physical isolation and distancing are the best strategies to prevent spread of the virus.Design/methodology/approachThe authors probe into the potential of collaborative reflection on self-narrative as an alternative and perhaps timely research approach.FindingsThe COVID-19 pandemic has altered our experiences of conventional teaching, learning and research. It is a scholarly challenging time, particularly for qualitative researchers in the social sciences whose research involves data collection methods that require face-to-face human interactions. Due to the worldwide lockdowns, self-isolation and social distancing, qualitative researchers are encountering methodological difficulties in continuing with their empirical fieldwork. In such circumstances, researchers are exploring alternative methodological approaches, taking advantage of telecommunication and digital tools for remote data collection. However, the authors argue that qualitative researchers should consider utilizing self-narratives of their experiences during the pandemic as a rich source of qualitative data for further delving into the socioeconomic, political and cultural impacts of the pandemic.Originality/valueThe authors' focus might be secondary in the minds of many social scientists who are directly contributing to our understanding of how the pandemic has upended communities. However, despite some limitations and ethical concerns, we urge qualitative researchers to embrace the potentials of CAE to study society, especially, but not only, in this unprecedented time.

PART I: Introduction -- 1. Contextualising the decade of disaster experiences in Ōtautahi Christchurch, and the Critical Disaster Studies imperative. By Steve Matthewman, Shinya Uekusa & Bruce Glavovic -- 2. Critical Disaster Studies: The evolution of a paradigm. By Anthony Oliver-Smith -- PART II: Critical framings of disasters -- 3. Elite panic and pathologies of governance before and after the Canterbury earthquake sequence. By Roy Montgomery -- 4. The ruptured city ten years on. By Katie Pickles -- 5. Critical Indigenous Disaster Studies: Doomed to resilience. By Simon Lambert -- 6. Rethinking community resilience: Critical reflections on the last 10 years of the Ōtautahi Christchurch recovery and on-going disasters. By Shinya Uekusa & Raven Cretney -- 7. Every last drop: The fresh water "disaster" in Canterbury. By Matthew Wynyard -- PART III: Critical voices in disasters -- 8. Hazardous times: Adversity, diversity and constructions of collectivity. By Rosemary Du Plessis -- 9. Māori community response and recovery following the Canterbury earthquake sequence. By Suzanne Phibbs, Christine Kenney & Tā Mark Solomon -- 10. Asian migrant worker experiences in Ōtautahi Christchurch. By Arlene Garces-Ozanne, Maria Makabenta-Ikeda & Shinya Uekusa -- 11. Minutes of shaking: Years of litigation. By Jeremy Finn & Elizabeth Toomey -- 12. Sustainability through adversity? The impacts of the earthquake on the greening of death. By Ruth McManus -- PART IV: Ōtautahi as a laboratory for the world: A prelude to the future -- 13. Why don't we "build back better"? The complexities of reconstituting urban form . By Steve Matthewman & Hugh Byrd -- 14. Turn and face the strange: Reflections on creativity following the Canterbury earthquake sequence. By Trudi Cameron -- 15. Planning, governance and a city for the future?. By Eric Pawson -- 16. Lessons for democracy from a decade of disaster. By Bronwyn Hayward & Sam Johnson.