Search results

This conversation presents the reflections from five prominent disaster scholars and practitioners on the opportunities and challenges associated with research following disasters and explores the importance of ethics in disaster research.

This paper is based on the conversations that took place on Disasters: Deconstructed Podcast livestream on the 11th of June 2021.

The prominent themes in this conversation include ethical approaches to research, how we–as disaster researchers and practitioners–collaborate, engage, and cooperate, and whose voices are centred in a post-disaster research context.

The conversation contributes to ongoing discussions around the conduct and practice of disaster research.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed account of the “Views from the Frontline” and “Frontline” methodologies, which underpinned the case studies presented in this issue.

A participant observer account of the development of the methods, leading to a critical discussion of their deployment and impact and a concluding discussion of further work required.

The study found that iterative development of the programmes had improved their ability to gather and analyse local experience, knowledge and priorities concerning risk and resilience, but raised a concern over the means by which this information was able to achieve necessary political influence.

This technical paper is a first assessment of the underlying method and application of “Views from the Frontline” and “Frontline” and benefits from the participant observer status of the authors. More work is required on the underlying questions concerning qualitative vs quantitatitive methods, and on the means of achieving political impact from the work.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the findings from the body of case studies offered in the issue, combined with three external perspectives on local voices and action.

Using as its basis the eight key case studies and three external contributions to the special issue, the paper offers a theoretical framework as a basis for discussion of this material. Through this, it identifies possible modes of action understood through the theoretical framework and elaborated through the specific cases. It concludes with proposals for further work.

The discussion finds that from a local perspective, the ambitions of local populations and local NGOs to achieve emancipatory change depend on the scope for local collaboration and partnerships to exercise influence on underlying risk factors. It resolves the suggested tension between operating within, and outside the system through the concept of “legitimate subversion”.

It is felt that the original recording of case studies of local level action combined with the process of iterative critical reflection on the part of the contributors offers a novel approach to knowledge creation from practice, and offers insights bridging theoretical and practitioner perspectives into means of addressing underlying risk factors affecting local populations.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the iterative process which led to the production of the case studies prepared by Civil Society Organisations which are at the core of this Special issue.

The development of the papers has been a process of “case study authors” peer group (editors included) exchange and discussed development, in a reactive or “stepwise” process encouraging authors to develop their material to reflect very varied contexts and cases related to community-driven actions and vulnerabilities.

The collaborative process has enabled authors to develop and share both the breadth and depth of complex local issues that address emerging vulnerabilities and barriers to community-driven action.

Encouraging local authors to critically explore their local experience and action has deepened our understanding of how communities actually assess and address their local reality and the challenges they face, whether these are locally considered as “disasters” or not, or indeed seen as long-term evolving risks and threats to survival.

The purpose of this paper is to individually examine the findings from eight case studies presented in this special issue and comparatively identify the findings regarding local learning and action.

Underlying research questions regarding power and powerlessness in regard to addressing underlying risk factors affecting local populations form the basis for the discussion. Proceedings of a collaborative workshop conducted with the contributing authors are analysed qualitatively to identify learning relating to the research questions emerging from the case studies individually and collectively.

A number of strategies and tactics for addressing underlying risk factors affecting local populations were identified from the case studies, including collaboration and cohesion. Campaigning, lobbying, communications and social mobilisation in an attempt to bridge the gap between local concerns and the decision-making of government and other powerful actors. Innovation and local mobilisation to address shortcomings in government support for disaster reduction and development. Communications as a first base to influence behaviour of both communities and government. Social change through empowerment of women to act in disaster reduction and development.

The outcomes of the action research conducted by the authors individually and collectively highlight the necessity for bridging different scales of action through a range of strategies and tactics to move beyond local self-reliance to influence on underlying risk factors. The action research process employed may have wider applications in gathering and formalising local-level experience and knowledge.

The case studies and their analysis present a range of practical strategies and tactics to strengthen local resilience and address underlying risk factors which are replicable in other contexts.

Practitioners are activists and do not often engage in critical reflection and analysis. The method presented here offers a means of achieving this in order to generate learning from local-level experience. The findings contribute to the consideration of cross-scale action to address underlying risk factors which impact local communities.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the creation of innovative methods for engaging in conversations about everyday risk.

A range of methods from conventional survey research to open-ended, semi-structured conversations and focus groups were used in the series of studies that serve as the subject of this meta-study. The meta-study uses participant observation, key informant interviews and project reports to narrate and evaluate the evolution of Frontline as an action planning, monitoring, advocacy and research tool.

The Views from the Frontline (VFL) methods began as the bottom-up mirror of a top-down monitoring approach used by the United Nations (Hyogo Framework for Action Monitor). Limitations of such bottom up monitoring led to creation of guidelines for formalising local knowledge resulting from actions – Action at the Frontline (AFL) and, later, Frontline, a flexible tool for eliciting experiences of everyday risk. The earlier VFL monitoring approach had shared outsiders’ assumptions about the nature of the “problem” and limited the degree to which local residents could express their own experiences and priorities.

Extensive use of this suite of methods has shown that civil society organisations are fully capable of conducting credible research when properly supported and motivated. Use of these methods has so far provided strong support for policy advocacy at the global scale, has had moderate success in liaison with national policy makers and slow but promising results as a learning/action tool at the local scale. Frontline has as yet untapped potential as a resource for academic research.

If ‘income‐poor’ older home‐owners could draw on their housing equity easily and with confidence, then they could afford practical help that would improve their quality of life and make it possible for them to continue to live for longer in their own homes. This article reports on three local authorities that are now piloting equity release schemes, and the plans for monitoring and assessing them.