Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics in Disaster Research: A New Declaration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Disaster Research and the Second Environmental Crisis

Part of the book series: Environmental Hazards ((ENHA))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, D. (1993). Natural disasters. London/New York: UCL Press and Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couch, S. R., & Kroll-Smith, J. S. (1985). Chronic technical disaster: Toward a social scientific perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 564–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischman, A. R., & Wood, E. B. (2002). Ethical issues research involving victims of terror. Journal of Urban Health, 79(3), 317–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, K. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger, P. (2007). Getting permission. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 405–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, I. (2005). Operational ethics for disaster research. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 23(3), 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendra, J., & Wachtendorf, T. (2016). American Dunkirk. The waterborne evacuation of Manhattan on 9/11. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, C. (2004). The concept of vulnerability in disaster research. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 395–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(1), 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, F. H., Galea, S., Friedman, M. J., & Watson, P. J. (2006). Methods for disaster mental health research. New York: Gilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mathúna, D. (2012). Roles and challenges with IRBs with disaster research. Research Practitioner, 13(5), 167–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton, D. (2003). Disaster preparedness: A social-cognitive perspective. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 210–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peek, L. A., & Sutton, J. N. (2003). An exploratory comparison of disasters, riots and terrorist acts. Disasters, 27(4), 319–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstein, D. L. (2004). Decision-making capacity and disaster research. Journal Traumatic Stress, 17, 373–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, L. (2007). Victims in our own minds? IRBs in myth and practice. Law & Society Review, 41(4), 777–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, E. A., Newman, E., Koss, M., & Bernstein, D. (1997). Does the study of victimization revictimize the victims? General Hospital Psychiatry, 19, 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A. M. (1985). Science and its limits: The regulator’s dilemma. Issues in Science and Technology, 2(1), 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, J. (2007). Institutional review boards and the constitution. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 493–562.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The “Workshop on Deploying Post-Disaster Quick-Response Reconnaissance Teams: Methods, Strategies, and Needs” was supported by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation. Rochelle Brittingham, Lauren Clay, and Kimberly Gill assisted in the organization and implementation of the workshop. The views presented in this chapter are solely those of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Disaster Research Center and Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy and Administration, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    James Kendra & Sarah Gregory

Authors
  1. James Kendra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Gregory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Kendra .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Disaster Research Center and Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy and Administration, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    James Kendra

  2. Department of History, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Scott G. Knowles

  3. Disaster Research Center and Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    Tricia Wachtendorf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kendra, J., Gregory, S. (2019). Ethics in Disaster Research: A New Declaration. In: Kendra, J., Knowles, S., Wachtendorf, T. (eds) Disaster Research and the Second Environmental Crisis. Environmental Hazards. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04691-0_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation