Disasters by Discipline[^1]:

necessary dialogue for emergency management education

Brenda D. Phillips, Ph.D.

Professor of Emergency Management

Jacksonville State University

<Brenda@jsucc.jsu.edu>

1-256-782-8053

A presentation made at the Workshop "Creating Educational Opportunities
for the Hazards Manager of the 21^st^ Century." Denver, Colorado,
October 22, 2003. I extend my appreciation to Deborah Thomas and Dave
Neal for their suggestions and guidance but retain responsibility for
any comments and conclusions.

# **Introduction**

At the July 2003 Boulder Natural Hazards Workshop, Dennis Mileti
declared that since people talked about emergency management (EM) as a
discipline, "therefore it is." Though he was not the first to so-state
(ICMA 1991; Haddow and Bullock 2003), he did so in a timely manner as
the number of EM programs continues to grow. The purpose of my
presentation is to continue the debate sparked in that moment and to
provoke deliberation over related questions.

Such disciplinary designations are not so easily conferred. We still
debate whether emergency management meets criteria as a profession---no
doubt our debate on disciplinary status has just begun. But what a
potential watershed moment nonetheless! As a veteran of the debates over
women's studies, I ask: is emergency management a discipline? Or a
multidisciplinary endeavor? Or a truly interdisciplinary field,
integrated into something greater than the sum of its parts? Or perhaps
a combination, that these are not mutually exclusive? Or how about this
one: is there an emergency management canon? These questions will no
doubt engage us for years to come. Position papers will be written,
perspectives challenged, debates entered in curriculum committees, turf
battles waged in graduate councils. I can already hear the debate being
reduced to whose definition of discipline should be used.

We need to pause and examine our past, while contemplating our future.
We can draw lessons from other fields like women's studies, criminal
justice, nursing, social work or public administration. Beverly
Guy-Sheftall, for example, identified four development phases in women's
studies (cited in Rosenfelt 1994, p. 34-35):

1.  independent women's studies programs develop;

2.  women's studies moves into the "mainstream" driven by curriculum
    transformation projects;

3.  "difficult dialogues" erupt around key questions;

4.  women's studies is infused by new ideas, directions
    (internationalization, linked to new disciplines, moves into
    graduate and professional education).

I have deliberately placed my presentation within the third phase,
though our individual programs may actually be in varying phases. I see
us beginning to wrestle with the dialogues that must occur before our
programs more fully flourish, broaden, and grow.

My presentation today will identify critical areas for debate, drawn
from my experiences in leading, facilitating, and participating in
developing new programs in women's studies and emergency management. As
new academic areas, these two areas have more in common than one might
think: both are breaking new ground in new ways, both face similar
questions of content, terminology, student markets and outcomes, and
faculty roles---not to mention questions of what we should teach or how
we should teach it.

In this presentation, I question what it means to be/become/establish a
new discipline/field of study/area through several topics traditionally
associated with such a "disciplinary" designation. I include these
topics as representative of areas and issues commonly found within
disciplines; in addition, these areas reflect core issues often found in
accreditation.

-   Naming the field:

    -   What is the right term/phrase to call this discipline/field of
        study/area?

-   Defining the field:

    -   How is emergency management defined?

-   Concepts:

    -   What are the key concepts that have driven the field?

    -   How have the key concepts (assuming they exist) been defined?

    -   Is there an implicit core curriculum?

    -   Is this the core curriculum that we want and need and will it
        effectively serve all potential student markets as well as
        employer needs?

-   Evolution of Emergency Management:

    -   What is the history of the field?

    -   What are the implications of this history?

    -   What more can/should we add?

-   Theory:

    -   What are the models, perspectives, paradigms, theories and
        philosophies that influence this field?

    -   What are their life span, influence, and value?

    -   How are they used/not used in classrooms and/or in practice?

-   Methods:

    -   What/which methods should be taught to students in this field?

    -   Traditional, applied? Statistical? Evaluative?
        Disaster-specific?

-   Practice:

    -   What should be the role(s) and relationship(s) between academia
        and industry/practice?

    -   How can academia make better use of existing resources,
        particularly organizations, agencies and institutions?

    -   Where do we stand on the question of accreditation of EM
        programs?

-   Student Outcomes Assessment:

    -   What types of recruitment and retention strategies work most
        effectively with EM students?

    -   What are the demographic backgrounds of students?

    -   Which students are most/least likely to persist through degree
        completion?

    -   What are students doing with their degrees and certificates?

    -   What do employers think of EM graduates?

-   Faculty Roles

    -   What are traditional faculty roles?

    -   Do those roles apply to emergency management?

    -   What frameworks might be used to evaluate faculty performance?

    -   How can we grow professional development opportunities for
        educators?

    -   Is it time to form a National Council of Emergency Management
        Educators?

Though the dialogue looms ahead for many of us-some of us eager, others
dreading the battles to come---into the fray we must go. Because this is
how we claim space in the academy and the time is at hand. In the words
of Captain Jean Luc Picard, who dared to go where others had not gone
before, "*engage*!"

**What do we call this field?**

Emergency Management (EM)? Hazards Management? Disaster Management? Risk
management? Crisis management? In a nod to this debate, Wayne Blanchard
(2003) used three simultaneously during a recent presentation at the
annual Natural Hazards Workshop. In its new graduate degree program,
Jacksonville State University used both disaster and emergency in course
titles.

As a survivor of similar debates in women's/gender/feminist studies, I
realize that we will probably not answer this question in our lifetimes,
and that events, policies, programs and people will challenge and change
the debate---as well it should. However, such is the development path
for most academic degree programs.

Those of us who have waded through *What is a Disaster* by E.L.
Quarantelli understand what I am suggesting. What are the implications
of terminology choices for the scope of what is taught? For the lines
that bound the work of the graduate designated with a certain degree
title? For the human resource manager searching for qualified employees?
For the research faculty members will conduct? Is the concern a serious
conceptual debate with implications that could bound or expand areas of
inquiry and study? Or does such a debate simply reflect long-standing
divisions and encampments within the academic and researcher
communities?

To start, let's take a look at where we are by examining key words used
in program titles, degrees, certificates and courses.

**Table 1. U.S. colleges and universities with the words hazard,
disaster, risk, crisis or emergency in the undergraduate program or
degree title**[^2]**.**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Institution**                     **key word**

  Arizona State University-East       Emergency

  Arkansas Tech University            Emergency

  Central Missouri University         Crisis, Disaster

  Jacksonville State University       Emergency

  North Dakota State University       Emergency

  Thomas Edison State College         Emergency, Disaster

  University of Akron                 Emergency

  University of North Texas           Emergency

  University of Richmond              Emergency

  Western Carolina University         Emergency
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Key word count clearly reveals that the vast majority has used the
concept "emergency" to label their programs.

**Table 2. U.S. colleges and universities with the words hazard,
disaster, risk, crisis or emergency in courses or programs at the
graduate level**[^3] **(excludes safety, fire, environmental unless
coupled with key words).**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Institution**                     **Key Word**

  Touro University International      Emergency, disaster

  University of South Dakota          Disaster (psychology)

  University of South Florida         Disaster management

  University of Richmond              Disaster sciences

  Anna Maria College                  Emergency planning and response

  Arizona State University East       Emergency management

  Benedictine University              Disaster management

  Cal State Long Beach                Emergency services

  Florida Atlantic University         Crisis and emergency management

  Florida State University            Emergency management

  George Washington University        Crisis, emergency, risk management

  Jacksonville State University       Emergency management

  John Jay College of Criminal        Emergency management
  Justice                             

  Louisiana State University          Disaster science and management

  Lynn University                     Emergency planning

  Oklahoma State University           Fire/Emergency Management

  Texas A&M University                Environmental hazard management

  University of Florida               Fire/Emergency Services

  University of North Texas           Emergency administration/planning
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

At the graduate level, these key words are used:

-   Emergency = 13

-   Disaster = 6

-   Crisis = 2

-   Hazard = 1

-   Risk = 1

At the graduate level, a broader array of terms can be seen. The origins
of this diversity should be examined but a cursory review suggests
connections to pre-established programs, placement within a particular
college, or the academic backgrounds of the faculty. Any future research
should include an historical examination of how these programs emerged,
why/how the designations were selected, and what those terms currently
mean to the faculty (and perhaps to the students). And, just as the
terms women's/gender/feminist studies were and continue to be debated,
our discussion has undoubtedly just begun. Academics know that they are
telegraphing messages with each term. Each term carries baggage, each
offers potential; clearly the debate matters to the academic, but does
it matter to the employer seeking a candidate with particular knowledge,
skills, and abilities?

Another view into this question comes from the international community.
Let's take a look first at Canadian course titles and then at program
titles.

**Table 3. A selective look at Canadian universities with the words
hazard, disaster, risk, or emergency in the course title**[^4]**.**

+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| **University**         | **course title**                            |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Lakehead University    | Geography of Risk and Hazard                |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| U of Manitoba          | Geography of Natural Hazards                |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| McMaster University    | Natural Disasters                           |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Universite du Quebec a | Catastrophes Naturelles et risques          |
| Montreal               | anthropiques                                |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| U of Regina            | Natural Hazards                             |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Ryerson U              | Facility Siting & Risk Assessment           |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| U of Toronto           | Emergency Response Systems Planning         |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Simon Fraser U         | Geography of Natural Hazards                |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| U of Victoria          | Disaster Planning                           |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Wilfred Laurier U      | Risks and Disasters                         |
|                        |                                             |
|                        | Natural Hazards                             |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| York U                 | Risk Assessment in Resource Management      |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| U of Winnipeg          | Natural Hazards                             |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

The word count in course titles appears as:

-   Hazard = 6

-   Risk = 5

-   Disaster = 3

-   Catastrophe = 1

-   Emergency = 1

Internationally, the term "hazards" and "risk" currently out-number both
disaster and emergency. Australian universities use emergency management
(Charles Sturt and Southern Cross University). In the United Kingdom,
Coventry University emphasizes disaster management while the University
of Leicester relies on "risk, crisis and disaster management." Istanbul
Technical University chose emergency management. Other nations certainly
do address this question, but problems with translation and cultural
nuances prevent further analysis. In terms of content, Geography
dominates the courses offered in Canadian universities, followed by
sociology, psychology, planning, economics and political science[^5].

**How is emergency management defined?**

It is clear that the emerging trend is to use the key word "emergency"
in program titles within the U.S., especially at the undergraduate level
and to couple that word with the term "management." However, what
exactly do we mean by the term "emergency management"?

Let's take a few moments to examine definitions in currently-used
textbooks or related materials:

> FEMA IS-1 Emergency Manager Course: "In its simplest terms, emergency
> management may be as simple as a homeowner responding to a broken
> water pipe and a flooded basement." p. 1-6. Related: "today the
> emphasis is on the protection of the civilian population and property
> from the destructive forces of natural and man-made disasters through
> a comprehensive program of mitigation, preparedness, response and
> recovery." (p. 1-5).
>
> ICMA (1991, p. xvii): "Emergency management is the discipline and
> profession of applying science, technology, planning, and management
> to deal with extreme events that can injure or kill large numbers of
> people, do extensive damage to property, and disrupt community life."
>
> Waugh (2000, p. 3): "In simplest terms, emergency management is the
> management of risk so that societies can live with environmental and
> technical hazards and deal with the disasters that they cause."
>
> Haddow and Bullock (2003, page 1): "A simple definition is that
> emergency management is the discipline dealing with risk and risk
> avoidance."

Professional associations tend to address what a person show know, thus
by implication define the field as well:

## International Association of Emergency Managers

> A Certified Emergency Manager© (CEM©) has the knowledge, skills and
> ability to effectively manage a comprehensive emergency management
> program.
>
> A CEM© has a working knowledge of all the basic tenets of emergency
> management, including mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.
>
> A CEM© has experience and knowledge of interagency and community-wide
> participation in planning, coordination and management functions
> designed to improve emergency management capabilities.
>
> A CEM© can effectively accomplish the goals and objectives of any
> emergency management program in all environments with little or no
> additional training orientation.

*National Emergency Management Association*:

## NEMA is the professional association of and for state emergency management directors.  NEMA's mission is to: 

> Provide national leadership and expertise in comprehensive emergency
> management.\
> \
> Serve as a vital emergency management information and assistance
> resource.\
> \
> Advance continuous improvement in emergency management through
> strategic partnerships, innovative programs, and collaborative policy
> positions. []{.mark}

*The International Emergency Management Society*:

> TIEMS is dedicated to developing and bringing the benefits of modern
> Emergency Management (EM) tools and techniques to society for a safer
> world.
>
> TIEMS was founded in 1993 as The International Emergency Management
> and Engineering Society, a non-profit organization for the purpose of
> bringing together users, planners, researchers, managers, response
> personnel and other interested parties to exchange information on the
> use of innovative methods and technologies to improve our ability to
> avoid, mitigate, respond to, and recover from natural and
> technological disasters.

This examination of definitions reveals a range of possible activities.
However, if we look at the most commonly-occurring ideas and words, it
is clear that common ground includes these definitional elements: *the
management of risk in order to protect life and property through a
comprehensive effort that involves non-linear activities tied to
mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery*. Interestingly, not all
definitions acknowledge an all-hazards approach.

**Key Concepts and the Implicit Core Curriculum**

Several authors clearly credit the National Governor's Association
(1979) with launching the key concepts of CEM/four phases. By looking at
practice, it is equally transparent that FEMA, EM organizations, and
state/local EMAs institutionalized the phases. The CEM core was first
implemented academically at the University of North Texas (Neal 2000)
with intent. The UNT faculty at the time chose to use CEM as a framework
for presenting a general overview, opting to have employers provide
specifics, "our discussions with alumni and advisory board members
generally supported this concept" although Neal does refer to other
possibilities as well (Neal 2000, p. 427; see also Neal 2003).
Conceptualizing and defining terminology is important, a concern noted
recently by Shaw and Harrald (2004) regarding terms for business
continuity and crisis management courses and programs. Such
conceptualizations are important to not only the academic but to the
professional, with implications for personnel selection and position
descriptions as two basic examples (Shaw and Harrald 2004). Concepts
need to be clearly defined to facilitate communication, conduct
research, and conduct effective practice.

The National Governor's Association (1979) can again be credited with
early definitions of these key concepts. Comprehensive emergency
management was defined as (p. 11): "a state's responsibility and
capability for managing all types of emergencies and disasters by
coordinating the actions of numerous agencies. The comprehensive aspect
of CEM includes all four phases of disaster or emergency activity:
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. It applies to all
risks: attack, man-made, and natural, in a federal-state-local
partnership." Rather than define each individual phase, the NGA report
described and identified activities related to the phase:

-   "Mitigation includes any activities that actually eliminate or
    reduce the probability of occurrence of a disaster." (p. 11).

-   "Preparedness activities are necessary to the extent that mitigation
    measures have not, or cannot, prevent disasters." (p. 11).

-   "Response activities follow an emergency or disaster. Generally,
    they are designed to provide emergency assistance for
    casualties...they also seek to reduce the probability of secondary
    damage." (p. 11).

-   "Recovery activities continue until all systems return to normal or
    better....or improved levels." (p. 12).

Let's look at the main introductory-level textbooks currently in use to
see what they offer as core chapters.

**Table 4. Commonly-presented chapter topics from the main introductory
texts currently in use.**

  ------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------
  Chapter Topic       ICMA          Waugh         Haddow and    FEMA IS-1
                                                  Bullock       

  History/Evol        Y             Y             Y             Some

  Preparedness        Y                           Y             Y

  Mitigation          Y                           Y             Y

  Planning            Y                                         Integrated w
                                                                Preparedness

  Response            Y                           Y             Y

  Recovery            Y                           Y             Y

  Legal               Y                                         

  Organizational      Y             Y                           

  Risks, hazards                    Y             Y             

  Communication                                   Y             

  Terrorism                                       Y             

  Global sector                                   Y             

  Management          Y             Y                           Y

  Policy                            Y                           

  Future/challenges   Y             Y             Y             
  ------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------

It is certainly my contention that a core curriculum exists for this
field and that it has implicitly emerged without much debate within the
educational community. The questions that remain include: should this be
the core curriculum and/or should any new/revised curricula incorporate
homeland security as an integral curricular component? And, if this is
the core what problems might exist with this heuristic device. Neal, for
example, describes how the phases blur, overlap and vary by context
(Neal 1997). Which topics, readings, and cases go in which courses?

If at least the four phases are becoming institutionalized, is there
agreement on their definitions? Table five (see end of paper) reveals
how currently-used textbooks and FEMA materials approach these concepts.
It is clear that the NGA report heavily influenced concepts,
definitions, and examples of phase-specific activities. The question
that remains is whether this 1970s effort meets the needs of
degree-granting programs or the scholarship that necessarily must
accompany such programs or the state of the EM field in general.

Finally, what are the implications of this core curriculum? Some initial
observations suggest that:

-   The core is based on and oriented toward the public sector emergency
    manager.

-   The core is activity-based rather than conceptually, theoretically
    or methodologically oriented.

-   The core may reflect an Americanized view of emergency management,
    arising out of the National Governors' Association Report.

Some potential actions that could be taken include:

-   A national, perhaps international, examination of curricula, coupled
    with a contextual analysis of which programs promote which core
    courses and for what purposes.

-   Curriculum infusion projects, a strategy used within women's
    studies, could potentially disseminate new ideas, invigorate the
    core, and share information across programs. Women's studies used
    this strategy in the 1970s, funded by the Ford Foundation.

-   National surveys of employers and emergency managers.

-   Questioning whether the generic core applies across all sectors.

**History of Emergency Management**

How we write history and who writes history matters. We can see this
problem by examining women's studies, which has challenged not only
mainstream history but its own internally-generated accounts. In the
1970s, early feminist research centered on textbooks and children's
books, examining the messages that were being sent as well as what was
included or excluded. I have followed this early step by examining the
most commonly-used introductory-level EM texts. Before I begin, though,
I want to acknowledge that each text was written for a different
audience, during different contexts, and with limited historical
resources. I have used each of these texts in classes and each offers
value and worth to the educator and teacher. In reviewing their
historical content, I draw collective rather than text-specific
conclusions and certainly intend no disrespect to the authors. Rather,
my point is to look at what we have done and where we might go.

To spark discussion, I examined four introductory-level resources and
compared content from chapters/sections on history/evolution of
emergency management. These sources included the ICMA "Green Book,"
Waugh's introductory text, Haddow and Bullock's introductory text, and
the FEMA Independent Study #1 Course "Emergency Manager." An overview is
provided in Table 6.

I would like to draw your attention to a couple of trends. First, if we
look at the content included by three or more of these sources, we can
identify some commonly-agreed upon historical moments[^6]. A more
in-depth analysis is prevented by the publication dates of the main
texts, which ranged from 1991 to 2003. Two texts pre-dated September 11
and the Department of Homeland Security.

-   1803 New Hampshire Congressional Act designated as the "first piece
    of national disaster legislation."

-   1950s designated as the days of civil defense.

-   1960s Hurricanes Betsy, Camille and Agnes as key events that changed
    the field.

-   1964 Alaskan earthquake.

-   1977-78 National Governor's Report/Project.

-   1979 Carter reorganization; John Macy appointed to direct FEMA.

-   1980s FEMA problems, misuse, scandals; Giuffrida mentioned by two.

Let's be a little more generous and look at the persons, events and
policies agreed upon by two or more sources, and add in the seven
bullets from the first list:

-   1803 New Hampshire Congressional Act designated as the "first piece
    of national disaster legislation."

-   1871 Great Chicago Fire.

-   1933 New Deal/Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

-   1934 Bureau of Public Roads.

-   1936 Flood Control Act.

-   1950s designated as the days of civil defense.

-   1950 Federal Disaster Act.

-   1960s Hurricanes Betsy, Camille and Agnes as key events that changed
    the field.

-   1964 Alaskan earthquake.

-   1969-70 Disaster Relief Act.

-   1971 San Fernando Earthquake.

-   1974 Disaster Relief Act.

-   1977-78 National Governor's Report/Project.

-   1979 Carter reorganization; John Macy appointed to direct FEMA.

-   1980s FEMA problems, misuse, scandals; Giuffrida mentioned by two.

-   1989 Hurricane Hugo and Loma Prieta Earthquake.

-   The Stafford Act.

-   1992 first World Trade Center Attack.

-   1993 Clinton appoints James Lee Witt.

-   1995 Oklahoma City Bombing.

-   1995-96 Nunn-Lugar Legislation.

In addition, two or more sources included mention (in the history
section) of:

-   Red Cross (minor mention in two sources).

-   Contributions of the behavioral sciences to the field (mentioned in
    two sources, extensive section in one).

-   IAEM/NEMA/TIEMS (mentioned in two sources).

How should we decide which events, players, and/or policies constitute
EM history? What will we learn from these choices---or fail to learn
from what is excluded? In drawing from women's studies, I offer a number
of observations and caveats:

-   Historical accounts must be questioned for their origins, accuracy
    and issues of representation.

-   Historical accounts should be subject to exacting research
    standards.

-   When are we going to write the history of emergency management
    education? Who will write it? Who/what will be included? What
    were/are the key turning points? Who/how will we make these
    decisions?

One of the more powerful, and most productive, critiques within women's
studies questioned who the "woman" was in women's studies. Women's
studies had produced a history that reflected the most visible actors,
resulting in an exclusionary bias within the history and subsequently
the course content that was taught. Questioning who the "woman" was
resulted in a more diverse, inclusive and fully representative depiction
of the field.

In short, who writes history matters, because it tends to reflect their
own experience, perspectives and politics. There are several questions
we could ask at this point:

-   Who is the emergency manager? In the data seen so far, the emergency
    manager appears to be primarily a public sector actor. Yet, the EM
    field is far more diverse. One caveat drawn from women's studies is
    that, especially in introductory texts, we should avoid monolithic
    representations.

-   Events, policies, presidents and a few individuals characterize the
    highlights of EM history. What more might we include, such as
    processes, the impact of organizations outside the public sector,
    programs, or major efforts (the First and Second Assessment, the
    FEMA Higher Education Project).

-   The existing historical context for emergency management is heavily
    U.S. based. Further global content is called for.

    -   Further diversity, useful for role modeling and equity issues
        (not to mention leadership courses), would be beneficial. I
        offer this general caveat from women's studies, through the
        words of historian Gerda Lerner (1997, p. 207):

        -   "Women have lived in a world in which they apparently had no
            history and in which their share in the building of society
            and civilizations was constantly marginalized....whatever
            impact they were able to have on institutions...had to be
            made from the margins...it is by now quite obvious that this
            long history of marginalization decisively affected women's
            self-perceptions, attitudes and group actions....women were
            also denied heroines and role models."

**Theories**

Before launching a discussion over theories and methods, I note that
accreditation agencies expect such inclusions, especially at the
graduate level. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS),
for example, outlines these criteria for a graduate-level program:

> \*A master's or a specialist degree must provide the following: an
> understanding of research and the manner in which research is
> conducted; an understanding of the subject matter, literature, theory
> and methodology of the discipline; an association with resident
> faculty sufficient to permit their individual evaluation of the
> candidate's capabilities; and demonstrated means of certifying the
> knowledge and skills the candidate has acquired.

Theory also proves to be a challenging topic, namely because we do not
have any EM-specific theories, paradigms, and perspectives. Until we
generate our own (assuming we need to do so), we can pull from other
disciplines. In order to assess the availability of theory for the
classroom, I examined the texts we use in most of our graduate-level
courses at Jacksonville State University.

[Impact of the Second Assessment]{.underline}

In *Disasters by Design*, Mileti applied the perspective of
sustainability as a force driving both understanding and practice and
devoted a chapter to systems theory, nicely coupling physical, social
and constructed systems as interacting components impacting the earth's
disasters. Such theoretical inclusions can be used in the classroom. For
example, I have used *systems theory* to pose classroom questions for
emergency management such as:

-   In what ways do these components interact to create vulnerability?

-   What is the impact of each system on the other?

-   Where are some points of intervention for the emergency manager?

In *Facing the Unexpected*, Tierney, Lindell and Perry (2001) presented
several approaches to study disaster. They noted that functionalist
theory has been implicitly used in disaster research and has influenced
tools like the "demand-capability" model. Tierney et al. then added the
Natural Hazards Perspective ("views hazard vulnerability as the product
of the joint functioning of a natural events system and the human use
system" p. 12) and identified emerging theoretical perspective used in
research (but unexamined yet for their impact in the classroom):

-   *Social constructionism*: "argues against viewing disasters as
    objective physical phenomena....\[but as\] "social processes through
    which groups promote claims about disasters and their
    consequences" p. 17.

-   *European critiques of modernity and industrial society*: "sees the
    potential for disasters as immanent in the social order itself
    rather than originating outside it, and conceptualizes disasters as
    an inevitable and direct consequence of the social relations and
    practices that characterize modern society" p. 18.

-   *Conflict-based and political-economy theories*: "sees disasters and
    their impact as resulting from political-economic forces that
    simultaneously shape both the vulnerability of the built environment
    to disaster damage and the social vulnerability of exposed
    populations"(p. 20.

-   *Political-ecological perspectives*: "sees communities not as
    unitary systems but rather as consisting of loosely-coupled,
    heterogeneous ecological elements and networks...within these
    ecological groupings power and resources are not distributed
    equally" p. 21.

In *American Hazardscapes*, Susan Cutter and her colleagues noted
several influential world views:

-   *Hazards Paradigm*: "society interacts with the physical environment
    and this interaction produces both beneficial and harmful
    effects" p. 5. They suggest several applications of the hazards
    paradigm, as impacted by systems theory:

    -   Human adjustment to natural hazards model (citing Kates 1971).

    -   Human adjustment to the risk of environmental extremes model
        (citing Mileti 1980).

-   *Risk Paradigm*: "has four primary elements: risk identification,
    dose-response assessment, exposure assessment and risk
    characterization...the ultimate goal of the risk assessment process
    was to identify remedial options that posed the least threat to
    human and ecosystem health" (p. 7).

[Impact of the FEMA Higher Education Project]{.underline}

The FEMA Higher Education Project recently produced a course, among
others, on vulnerability that contains some promising analytical tools.
In that work, "A Social Vulnerability Approach to Disaster," Elaine
Enarson and her colleagues contrasted the Dominant and Vulnerability
stances in what is probably the best application of perspectives for
classroom content to date. Our field needs more such efforts and
applications.

[Additional resources]{.underline}

It would be worthwhile to explore further both disaster and non-disaster
sources for classroom use. For example, Tierney Petak and Hahn (1988)
presented three views on disability that can be applied disaster. These
are:

-   *The medical model*. Views disability as an individual problem and
    stresses solutions arising from treatment of the single person.

-   *The economic model*. Sees disability as something that prevents the
    individual from participating fully economically through employment.

-   *The socio-political model*. Views the problem as lodged in social
    structural arrangements that, if modified, could result in improved
    status of persons with disabilities.

Enarson and Phillips (2004) produced a thorough application of feminist
theories for both research and practice. In their work, applications of
liberal, radical, post-modern, and ecofeminist theories (and more)
produced new insights as to what may foster vulnerability and/or nurture
capacity. Their efforts included implications for both research and
practice, for example, the need for emergency managers to support
shelters for battered women when disasters reduce funding and staff, or
to address the needs of displaced, home-based workers due to flood
events.

Finally, consider eco-systems model (Garbarino 1982). Four levels
characterize the eco-system, each of which can be used to broaden the
perspective of the student. For example, I used the eco-system model
recently to look at the question of preparedness:

-   *Micro-level* : examines the interpersonal level; how can working
    relationships within a city government enhance the potential to
    prepare a community?

-   *Meso-level*: looks at settings that link micro level contexts; how
    might the emergency manager work within the school system to
    disseminate information on protective actions?

-   *Exo-level*: examines settings that have power such as policy; what
    are some policy changes that the emergency manager could support to
    enhance preparedness within facilities such as nursing homes and
    child care centers?

-   *Macro-level*: questions the influence of the broader social,
    cultural, political and economic contexts; in what ways does the
    political economy affect the emergency manager's abilities to impact
    preparedness levels? In what ways does culture affect preparedness
    activities?

To meet the demands of accreditation, we must include theoretical and/or
analytical tools. To do so, we need to explore more fully existing tools
and examine how we are (or are not) using them and with what impact.
Would doing so provoke new insights? Generate new frameworks? Undermine
the four phases? Redefine "emergency"? Yield strategies that improve
performance? How many among us would dare to offer "EM 450:
Postmodernism and the Emergency Manager" or "EM 570: Climatology,
Catastrophe and Chaos Theory"? What advances might we forego if we do
not?

Conversely, what pandora's box might we open? Consider Quarantelli and
Dynes' (1977, p. 44) cautionary words on applying discipline-based
theory and research to interdisciplinary areas: "the past history of
interdisciplinary research, including efforts in the disaster area, is
not supportive of the ideas that better research results are obtained or
that applications of findings are more easily accomplished by taking an
interdisciplinary stance. In such an approach, contributions of
different disciplines are often reduced to the lowest common
denominator, which is sometimes only slightly, if at all, a common-sense
level." Nonetheless, developing emergency management theory is a journey
we must take.

**Methods**

As mentioned earlier, SACS accreditation for graduate-level study says
that programs must provide "an understanding of research and the manner
in which research is conducted" and "an understanding of ... methodology
of the discipline." We need to explore more fully what we should teach
in a research course as well as what might constitute the "methodology"
of the "discipline."

I taught Research Methods for Emergency Management last year at the
undergraduate level, *online*. The biggest challenge that emerged
concerned the multiple goals of such a course within a fourteen-week
semester along with the challenges of a virtual classroom. Course goals,
as discussed by faculty and with colleagues, included:

-   An understanding of basic research;

-   An ability to assess scientific research;

-   Being able how to apply research to real-world problems;

-   Learning how to work with researchers/consultants while working as
    an emergency manager;

-   Understanding how to put together a basic survey (for example);

-   "Do we have to learn statistics"?;

-   Disaster-specific assessment skills;

-   Online instruction made some parts of a traditional methods course
    especially challenging. If you have never taught random sampling
    virtually, rethink offering an online degree program in emergency
    management!

The question we must address is this: how much should we include? To
look at this question, I selected two sources for examination. First, I
looked at the FEMA Higher Education course on methods; second, I
examined content in a new book published by the International Research
Committee on Disasters and edited by Robert Stallings, *Methods of
Disaster Research*.

Key content in the FEMA course include:

-   The scientific method

-   Measurement and data gathering processes

-   Program evaluation

-   Hazards analysis

-   Information technology

-   Case studies

-   Cost-benefit analysis of mitigation

-   Questionnaire design

-   Surveys

-   Quasi-experimental designs

-   Field research

-   Statistical analysis

Key chapters in the *Methods of Disaster Research* book include:

-   Methods of DR: unique or not?

-   Field Studies (multiple)

-   Survey Research

-   Qualitative methods

-   Historical research

-   Electronic media/Internet (multiple)

-   Cross-national and comparative (multiple)

-   Media

What should be in a methods course? Based on the above resources, might
we not also consider:

-   Damage assessment

-   Needs Assessment

-   Participatory research strategies

-   Focus groups

-   Research design

-   Ethics and human subjects

To better understand what should be included in methods courses, we need
some basic information such as:

-   An immediate survey of those working in emergency management (all
    sectors) to identify the methodological tools they need to know.

-   Identification of the core topical areas, such as disaster-specific
    skills (damage assessment, hazard analysis) versus/including
    research-specific skills.

-   Discussion over the desirable outcome(s): producing students with
    research skills (accreditation standards), producing researchers, or
    something else.

**Emergency Management Practice**

EM is very much an applied field, not unlike nursing, law, or social
work. Yet, I see EM programs struggling with how to better connect
research with practice, and tie students to employment. Classrooms
represent the traditional mode of transmission and application, but in
emergency management, practical experiences matter as well. Internships
have been one traditional solution, but more diverse routes could and
should be made available. Women's studies has formed strong partnerships
with a number of end-users, such as shelters for battered women,
affirmative action programs, political organizations, and more. What
kinds of partnerships could/should be generated between EM education and
practice?

For example, The National Science Foundation has funded a number of
engineering research centers that link research, education and
industry[^7]. Some enjoy strong linkages that directly transfer
knowledge into practice. Students are involved in research, internships,
and paid employment. End-users participate in educational exchanges.

As another example, Lopes (2001) described a national effort that linked
agencies in the National Disaster Education Coalition. He noted the
value of working with hazards researchers and the valuable exchanges
from the annual Natural Hazards Workshop. EM educators should build
stronger bridges to the nonprofit sector. EM educators should explore
comparable opportunities that link education with a broad range of
industry, from EM through specific organizations such as the National
Weather Service, the pharmaceutical industry, the petrochemical industry
and more.

Could such links and partnerships:

-   Foster links between nonprofit, private and public agencies.

-   More effectively transfer information back and forth between
    education and practice?

-   Sponsor, review and critique what is being taught in degree
    programs.

-   Sponsor a curriculum examination process.

-   Identify how stronger linkages could be developed.

-   Demand that textbooks incorporate materials on the private and
    nonprofit sectors, with concrete examples depicting the
    relationships between research and practice.

-   Help infuse content from business, faith-based organizations,
    volunteer agencies, applied research laboratories, and more.

-   Foster participation in debates (and resolutions?) regarding
    accreditation issues, such as those faced by social work and public
    administration?

-   Facilitate the exchange of information on emergency management
    curricula?

Programs could be examined to determine how well they promote
understanding of all sectors as well as develop and preserve
partnerships and linkages; and be encouraged to add meaningful, active
advisory boards that represent the full range of those involved in
emergency management (Neal 2000).

**Student Outcomes Assessment**

Accreditation bodies demand evidence of success, typically presented
within the context of student outcomes assessment. Such assessment is
typically mission-driven and goal-oriented, suggesting that programs
should also develop a definitive strategic plan (Nichols 1991). Women's
studies has not done the best job in this area, a problem that has
impacted abilities to generate data sufficient to convince state
educational boards to add more programs.

During the Second Assessment, Mileti (2000) and Fothergill (2000) noted
that knowledge transfer organizations represent critical links between
hazards researchers and EM practice. But to date, no one has published
assessment data on students, their experiences, or the ways in which
they use their degrees (or certificates).

Thorough research on EM program graduates is thus called for. EM
educators, through their degree programs, may serve as one of the
"translators", the "person in the middle" that connects research with
practice Quarantelli called for (1993, cited in Fothergill 2000; see
also Neal 1993). Such research is imperative so that we can identify
what we are doing well, what we need to improve, and what we need to
retain.

Below, I suggest several key areas in which we need to conduct
assessment, from initial recruitment through employment of program
graduates. And, though assessments can be considered proprietary in a
competitive market, I suggest that we publish our assessments and pool
our knowledge as a service to emergency management education.

[Recruitment]{.underline}

Recruitment efforts and anecdotal success stories vary across existing
programs. While some EM programs have struggled to attract students,
others have slowly built up. At JSU, our program has grown dramatically.
Two years ago, we had a handful of graduate students. Since adding new
faculty, an undergraduate degree, and a master of science degree, we
have become the most rapidly growing program in our institution.
Currently, we have close to 200 undergraduates and nearly that many
graduate students. At the graduate level, we average 45 new graduate
students every fall and spring semester in the introductory course. At
the undergraduate level, the introductory course has currently enrolled
61 students though about one-fourth is taking the course as an elective.
Our program now produces the second-highest semester credit hour
production within the College of Arts and Sciences and is a contributor
to the highest producer through our graduate EM concentration in public
administration. This type of growth is unprecedented in the EM field.

What has worked? At the graduate level, we do not conduct much
recruitment. Rather, they tend to find us through Internet searches, due
in large part to the FEMA Higher Education page. At the undergraduate
level, a formal relationship with the Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials has produced a steady stream of students into
the public safety telecommunications minor/certificate/associate's
degree (shared through the Institute of Emergency Preparedness jointly
conducted with Gadsden State Community College) and subsequently into
the undergraduate EM degree. During the first year of the undergraduate
degree (2001-2002) most students came from the dispatcher community.
Since then, the undergraduate population has diversified but still
reflects more of the first responder and dispatch sectors more than
other areas. Which recruitment strategies work best and with what
results?

[Retention and Attrition]{.underline}

Which retention strategies work? Based on my own experience in an online
environment, I believe that a couple of factors have worked with our
students. First, students that are already career oriented and seek the
degree for promotional purposes succeed. Second, those with funding to
pay for tuition persist. Third, writing and analytical skills help.
Fourth, feeling supported and/or connected to the institution makes a
difference, especially a strong tie to faculty members. Fifth, fully
engaging oneself in the course work and with one's online classmates
makes a difference. Sixth, pro-active advising can retrieve those at
risk.

What affects attrition? Again, based on experiential data, I believe
that the online environment can work against some students especially
those without technical skills or abilities to work independently. In
addition, consider these possibilities:

-   Lack of funding or financial aid.

-   Lack of scholarships.

-   Faculty inattention to those not participating in the online
    environment.

-   Not being fully prepared for college-level or graduate-level work.

-   Poorly-prepared or non-supportive infrastructure.

-   Lack sufficient self-discipline at the individual level.

[Demographic Profiles]{.underline}

Frankly, we know next to nothing about the demographic profile of EM
students. Several programs have offered initial insights. For example,
the University of North Texas initially attracted first responders,
eventually diversifying their student market as traditional, younger
students found the major through course electives or outreach
strategies. At Jacksonville State University, the graduate program
attracted both first responders and the military along with a smaller
group of students from the nonprofit sector and a minority of students
in the private sector. The majority of the graduate students already
work in emergency response and/or emergency management or the military,
although a minority of newcomers to the field continues to enter the
program.

At the undergraduate level, the majority of JSU students are from the
public safety telecommunications/dispatch field, primarily because of
recruitment through APCO. Within the last year, though, the
undergraduate program has diversified to include more first responders
followed by those newly finding our program.

What are the implications of these student market streams? Taking an
example from JSU, I wonder of the impact of so many dispatchers in the
program. Will the EM field benefit from an employee pool with
significant communications experience? Will the EM field lose these
graduates if they choose to remain in telecommunications, obtaining the
degree primarily for upward mobility? Conversely, will there be a "brain
drain" from the telecommunications field if these students opt for EM
careers? Or, will we ultimately see a closer alliance between the
"silent front line" and emergency management agencies?

And what of the impact of the numbers of military students? For a
moment, just imagine the debates we have had over Dynes' writings on the
military model (command and control) versus the more flexible, emergent,
human resources model. Interestingly, as an aside, we are finding that
the officers in our program ultimately support the human resources model
as a management strategy and even point to examples of how this model is
used within the military today. We are seeing some of these students
retire from the military and seek civilian employment. What will be
their influence? A return to Waugh's depiction of the "air raid warden"?
A new-style emergency manager well-suited to a homeland security model
of emergency management? Or a veteran who challenges assumptions based
on the research? As one of our military students recently said after
reading Perrow's work in David Neal's capstone course, "this book really
screwed me up."

[Outcomes]{.underline}

The EM education field is seeing students go out into EM practice and
apply what they have learned. One of those first graduates, Gregg Dawson
(University of North Texas) now works for the Office of Emergency
Management in Fort Worth, Texas. In 1993, he wrote about how fellow
students argued with instructors over research that defied myths of
looting, panic and mass sheltering needs. After four years on the job,
he admitted, "I am still surprised how accurate those researchers have
been and continue to be."

Outcomes assessment can be course-specific, program-oriented, or
student-based. Faculty evaluations typically represent course-specific
outcomes and offer insights into pedagogical techniques; these
evaluations may serve as an initial source of insight. For example,
which program structures and delivery platforms work most effectively
for the EM student? Traditional classroom settings, accelerated courses,
distance education (video, CD, cassette, web-based)? And, what are
students doing with their degrees? How well do they translate into
employment? What do employers think of students? More importantly, when
will be begin to answer these questions and will we be willing to
collaborate with each other to do so?

Finally, are EM programs mentoring the next generation of EM faculty? If
so, how? Do we need a "Next Generation" project for EM educators?

**Faculty Role Performance**

Traditionally, the faculty engages in three main activities: teaching,
research and service. Time dedicated to each varies by institution,
often driven by mission, history, size, and resources. For an applied
field like emergency management, however, an additional area of practice
is either tacked on or integrated as a sub-set of service. Because those
who research in the area must meet academic publishing expectations,
faculty must therefore produce scholarly materials suitable for
peer-review. Simultaneously, those products must be understandable to a
broad range of end-users. The academy does not always respect or
recognize such practical applications (or the double life necessary to
make this happen), a problem noted in the differing "cultural contexts"
of the academic and the practitioner (Mileti 1999; Fothergill 2000). In
addition, because programs are in the process of emerging, service loads
can be quite high. Juggling these multiple expectations and contexts can
enervate the most dedicated and enthusiastic faculty member (Neal 2000).

It is time for EM faculty to take control of their academic destiny,
define their roles and augment their academic standing. We could draw
from other applied fields that have gone this route successfully. For
example, the American Association of College of Nurses offers a
framework for potential use. Their *Position Statement on Defining
Scholarship for the Discipline of Nursing* includes
(<http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Publications/positions/scholar.htm>):

-   *The Scholarship of Teaching*: "inquiry that produces knowledge to
    support the transfer of the science and art of nursing from the
    expert to the novice."

    -   What do we know about EM pedagogy? Women's studies faculty have
        actively question classroom techniques and philosophies. The
        result? A more diverse set of pedagogical choices, informed by
        thoughtful reflection and empirical data. What might happen, for
        example, if we explored more fully the range of pedagogical
        choices? Perhaps we might see classrooms inspired by Freier's
        anti-banking pedagogy, or bell hooks' emphasis on transformative
        teaching? Or uncover strategies that nurture retention rather
        than rote memorization? Perhaps find a professional development
        strategy for faculty/teacher preparation?

-   *The Scholarship of Practice/Application*: "evidence of direct
    impact in solving health care problems or in defining the health
    problems of a community....practice roles for faculty in health care
    delivery systems may include direct caregiver, educator, consultant,
    and administrator."

    -   EM education programs *are* knowledge transfer organizations
        (Mileti 1999; Fothergill 2000). Faculty are involved in the
        community, as consultants, project team members, and through
        service efforts. But how have we documented this faculty role?
        Faculty members tend to present their role performances through
        standardized academic presentations (or hidden in voluminous
        notebooks for annual evaluations). Perhaps we should explore
        ways to highlight the diversity of faculty contributions.

-   *The Scholarship of Discovery*: "inquiry that produces the
    disciplinary and professional knowledge that is at the very heart of
    academic pursuits."

    -   EM faculty tend to excel in this area, producing academic
        articles as well as technical publications and public
        presentations. However, we should further pursue the type of
        research seen only in the appendix of *Disasters by Design* (and
        the article by Fothergill) that examines how we transfer our
        discoveries. But what of related issues. For example, we
        desperately need a research methods textbook. Finally, where are
        our centers of research for EM education?

-   *The Scholarship of Integration*: "refers to writings and other
    products that use concepts and original works...in creating new
    patterns, placing knowledge in a larger context, or illuminating the
    data in a more meaningful way...emphasizes the interconnection of
    ideas and brings new insight to bear on original concepts and
    research."

    -   Where do we see the scholarship of integration in EM education?
        Certainly, education plays an important role in such
        integration. Graduate programs in particular emphasize the need
        to integrate and synthesize concepts and original works. But
        have we published or shared such products or the related
        birthing process? Clearly, an effort explicating these
        educational efforts would be of service.

The American Association of College of Nurses offers clear documentary
sources for these categories, many of which are applicable to emergency
management. Comparable frameworks can also be found in other areas
including women's studies.

I suggest that we have done well in the scholarship of discovery but
lack evidence of scholarship in teaching, practice, and integration. To
become a more fully accepted and institutionalized "discipline"
documenting our value within academic settings, and infusing our field
with shared knowledge, is critical. Fostering professional development
opportunities beyond research support is essential as well.

# **Conclusion**

We are at a pivotal moment in the evolution of this
discipline/field/area: where do we go from here? Our actions must be
deliberative and mindful, incorporating "lessons learned" from the
emergence of other academic enterprises.

Can we identify the "drivers" that might move us through a comparable
series of phases as described in the introduction? Such a picture might
include:

-   The impact of research centers and individual researchers in
    producing the "scholarship of discovery."

-   The impact of the first and second assessments, with the latter
    identifying useful theories and perspectives for potential classroom
    and practical application.

-   The impact of the FEMA Higher Education project, its annual
    conferences, web site, courses, and textbook(s).

-   The impact of EMI and its independent study courses; assessment of
    this effort and its impact would be valuable.

-   Efforts like the World Congress Blueprint on Education or the
    Organization of American States' Hemispheric Eduplan, largely yet to
    be acknowledged or integrated.

-   Individual writings on EM education, scattered throughout a limited
    number of journals.

What other potential drivers are needed? Among those I have recommended:

-   A thorough, "second assessment" type of review of the state of EM
    education with task forces on theory, methods, practice and the core
    curriculum, not to mention the question of the canon.

-   Curriculum analysis linked to curriculum transformation projects.

-   Exploration of theory and methods for EM education and practice.

-   Development of a national council or association of EM educators.

    -   With a web site of resources including annotated bibliographies,
        book reviews, syllabi, projects, handouts, list serves.

    -   A faculty role statement usable within individual institutions
        for faculty evaluation and to justify faculty activities.

    -   Lobbying of publishers to produce a full line of textbooks and
        anthologies appropriate for both the undergraduate and graduate
        levels.

-   More conferences, including online interactions to provoke and
    continue dialogue.

-   Journal sections dedicated exclusively to EM education.

-   Funding for EM education, scholarships, textbooks and more.

-   Integration of EM educators into efforts like the National Science
    Foundation engineering research centers.

One of the greatest outcomes of the organizing and outreach in women's
studies has been the impact of more diverse perspectives, especially the
impact of global understanding. Throughout this paper, I have noted the
tendency to emphasize U.S. contexts in curricula, textbooks, and
research. As we pursue our "difficult dialogues" during this conference,
I urge all of us to "think globally" while acting locally in our own
countries, our own universities, and our own programs.

Because what we do makes a difference in actual human lives, in property
loss......we should proceed with deliberative dialogue But proceed we
must. *Engage*.

# **References**

American Association of Colleges of Nursing. 2003. "Position statement
on defining scholarship for the discipline of nursing."
<http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Publications/positions/scholar.htm>. Accessed
September 1, 2003.

Blanchard, B. Wayne. 2003. "Outlines of competencies to develop
successful 21^st^ century hazard or disaster or emergency or hazard risk
managers." Presentation at the *Natural Hazards Workshop*, Boulder,
Colorado.

Cutter, Susan L., editor. 2001. *American Hazardscapes*. Washington
D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Dawson, Gregg. 1993. "A comparison of research and practice: a
practitioner's view." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters* 15 (2): 55-62.

Enarson, Elaine et al. 2003. "A social vulnerability approach to
disasters." FEMA Emergency Management Institute Higher Education
Project.

Enarson, Elaine and Brenda Phillips. 2004. "Feminist Theory for Research
and Practice." Forthcoming in Brenda Phillips and Betty Morrow, editors.
*Women and Disasters*. International Research Committee on Disasters:
Xlibris.com

Falkiner, Leanna. 2003. *Inventory of Disaster Management Education in
Major Canadian Universities.* Institute for Catastrophic Loss
Reduction/Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency
Preparedness.

Fischer, Henry W. 2003. "Distance Learning Programs." Contemporary
Disaster Review Volume 1, #2.
http://muweb.millersville.edu/\~cdr/CDR_1.2.pdf

Fothergill, Alice. 2000. "Knowledge transfer between researchers and
practitioners." *Natural Hazards Review* 1/2: 91-98.

Freier, Paolo. 1997. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. NY: The Continuum
Publishing Company.

Garbarino, James. 1982. *Children and Families in the Social
Environment*. NY: Aldine.

Guy-Sheftall, Beverly. 1992. "The Status of Women's Studies." Consultant
Report to the Ford Foundation.

hooks, bell. 1994. *Teaching to Transgress: education as the practice of
freedom*. NY: Routledge.

Kincaid, J. Peter. 1999. "Research and analysis methods in emergency
management." FEMA Emergency Management Institute Higher Education
Project.

Lerner, Gerda. 1997. *Why History Matters: life and thought*. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.

Lopes, Rocky. 2001. "Editorial: partnerships for disaster education."
*Natural Hazards Review* 2/3: 102-104.

Mileti, Dennis. 1999. *Disasters by Design*. Washington DC: Joseph Henry
Press.

Neal, David M. 1997. "Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster."
*International*

*Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 15 (2): pp 239-264.

Neal, David M. 2000. "Developing degree programs in disaster management:
some reflections and observations." *International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters* 18/3: 417-437.

Neal, David M. 2003. "Teaching introduction to disasters: comparing
classroom and virtual environments." Emergency Preparedness Applied
Research Center Preliminary Paper #2. Available from the author,
neal@jsucc.jsu.edu.

National Academies. 2003. "The Emergency Manager of the Future."
*Conference Proceedings, Disaster Roundtable*, June 13, 2003.
http://www.nas.edu.

Nichols, James. O. 1991. *A Practitioner's Handbook for Insitutional
Effectiveness and Student Outcomes Assessment Implementation*. New York:
Agathon Press.

Organization of American States, Natural Hazards Project.
http://www.oas.org/nhp.

Quarantelli, E.L. 1993. "Converting disaster scholarship into effective
disaster planning and managing: possibilities and limitations."
*International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 11/1: 15-39.

Quarantelli, E.L. and Russell R. Dynes. 1977. "Response to social crisis
and disaster." *American Review of Sociology* 3: 23-49.

Rosenfelt, Deborah S. 1997. "Definitive issues: women's studies,
multicultural education, and curriculum transformation in policy and
practice in the United States." *Women's Studies Quarterly* 3&4: pp.
26-41.

Shaw, Greg and Jack Harrold. 2004. "Identification of the core
competencies required of executive level business crisis and continuity
managers." *Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management* 1/1,
Article 1. http://www.bepress.com/jhsem.

Stallings, Robert A., Editor. 2002. *Methods of Disaster Research*.
International Research Committee on Disasters: Xlibris.Com.

Tierney, Kathleen J., Michael K. Lindell and Ron W. Perry. 2001. *Facing
the Unexpected*. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Tierney, Kathleen J., William J. Petak and Harlan Hahn. 1988. Disabled
Persons & Earthquake Hazards. Boulder, CO: Institute for Social and
Behavioral Science, Natural Hazards Research and Applications
Information Center.

# 

# Table 5. Definitions of comprehensive emergency management and the four phases, as found in the initial pages of the first chapters to address the concept within each resource.

  ------------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------
                     **National Governor's  **FEMA IS-1 Emergency  **ICMA Green Book**   **Waugh**             **Haddow and
                     Association**          Program Manager                                                    Bullock**
                                            Course**                                                           

  **Comprehensive    "Comprehensive         "was institutionalized "calls for an         References National   Not found. A
  Emergency          Emergency Management   with the creation of   integrated approach   Governor's            series of chapters
  Management**       (CEM) is a new term.   FEMA in                to the management of  Association.          on the phases are
                     It refers to a state's 1979...reflects a      emergency programs                          referred to as
                     responsibility and     switch in orientation  and activities: each                        "The Disciplines
                     capability for         from preparation for a element of CEM                              of Emergency
                     managing all types of  single hazard or       relates to every                            Management" and
                     emergencies and        narrowly defined       other element...a way                       include
                     disasters by           categories of hazards  of fitting together                         mitigation,
                     coordinating the       toward an all-hazards  the many elements of                        response,
                     actions of numerous    approach...implies     EM into an inclusive                        recovery,
                     agencies. The          partnership...and an   framework that                              preparedness, and
                     "comprehensive" aspect occurrence cycle" (p.  encompasses all                             communications.
                     of CEM includes all    8).                    hazards and all                             
                     four phases of                                levels of government"                       
                     disaster or emergency                         (p. xx).                                    
                     activity: mitigation,                                                                     
                     preparedness,                                                                             
                     response, and                                                                             
                     recovery. It applies                                                                      
                     to all risks: attack,                                                                     
                     man-made, and natural,                                                                    
                     in a                                                                                      
                     federal-state-local                                                                       
                     partnership" (p. 11).                                                                     

  **Mitigation**     "Includes any          "any activities which  References FEMA       "those activities     "a sustained
                     activities that        atually eliminate or   definition, "acting   designed to prevent   action to reduce
                     actually eliminate or  reduce the occurrence  before a disaster     or reduce losses from or eliminate risk
                     reduce the probability of a disaster. It also strikes to prevent    disaster" (p. 49).    to people and
                     of occurrence of a     includes long-term     permanently the                             property from
                     disaster..arms         activities which       occurrence of a                             hazards and their
                     build-up, land-use     reduce the effects of  disaster or to reduce                       effects" (p. 37).
                     management,            unavoidable disasters" the effects of the                          
                     establishing CEM       (Toolkit)              disaster when it                            
                     programs, building                            occurs" (p. 132).                           
                     safety codes" (p. 13).                                                                    

  **Preparedness**   Activities are         "preparedness          Kreps' chapter        "Planning how to      "Can best be
                     necessary to the       activities are         includes "is a        respond in an         defined as a state
                     extent that mitigation necessary to the       continuous process,   emergency or a        of readiness to
                     measures have not, or  extent that mitigation reduces unknowns      disaster and          respond to a
                     cannot, prevent        measures have not, or  during an emergency,  developing            disaster, crisis,
                     disasters...develop    cannot, prevent        is an educational     capabilities for a    or any type of
                     plans, mounting        disasters....develop   activity, is based on more effective        emergency
                     training exercises,    plans to save lives    knowledge, evokes     response" (p. 49).    situation" (p.
                     installing warning     and minimize disaster  appropriate action,                         115).
                     systems, stockpiling   damage...seek to       resistance is a                             
                     food and medical       enhance disaster       given, modest                               
                     supplies, mobilizing   response operations"   planning is a                               
                     emergency personnel"   (Toolkit).             reasonable goal" (p.                        
                     (p. 13).                                      35-36).                                     

  **Response**       "Activities follow an  "activities follow any Includes sections on  "is the immediate     Implicitly defined
                     emergency or disaster. emergency or           planning,             reaction to           through examples,
                     Generally, they are    disaster...designed to organizations, EOCs,  disaster...examples   which include
                     designed to provide    provide emergency      behavior, and six     include mass          activities ranging
                     emergency assistance   assistance for         generic functions:    evacuation,           from first
                     for casualties...seek  casualties. They also  warning, evacuation,  sandbagging...food    responders through
                     to reduce the          seek to reduce the     sheltering/welfare,   and water...emergency the Federal
                     probability of         probability of         medical care/morgues, medical services,     Response Plan as
                     secondary damage...and secondary damage and   search and rescue,    etc." (p. 49).        well as job
                     to speed recovery      to speed recovery      security and                                descriptions of
                     operations" (pp.       operations" (Toolkit). protection of                               emergency
                     13-14).                                       property (chapter 8                         management
                                                                   by Perry).                                  coordinators. In
                                                                                                               the chapter on
                                                                                                               recovery, "the
                                                                                                               response function
                                                                                                               is classified as
                                                                                                               the immediate
                                                                                                               actions to save
                                                                                                               lives, protect
                                                                                                               property and meet
                                                                                                               basic human needs"
                                                                                                               (p. 95).

  **Recovery**       "activities continue   "continues until all   "In short, recovery   "those activities     "is not so easily
                     until all systems      systems return to      involves the          that continue beyond  classified" (p.
                     return to normal or    normal or better.      restoration---and, in the emergency period  95)...includes
                     better..short-term     Short term recovery    some cases, the       to restore lifelines" time frame issues,
                     recovery activities    returns vital life     improvement---of      (p. 49)               typical decisions,
                     return vital           support systems to     community life"                             return to
                     life-support systems   minimum operating      (Chapter 9 by Rubin).                       normalcy, and
                     to minimum operating   standards. Long term                                               reducing future
                     standards. Long-term   recovery may continue                                              vulnerability.
                     recovery               for a number of years                                              
                     activities....return   after a disaster.                                                  
                     life to normal or      Their purpose is to                                                
                     improved levels" (p.   return life to normal,                                             
                     14).                   or improved levels"                                                
                                            (Toolkit).                                                         
  ------------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------

Figure 6. Comparison of Textbooks and Materials on the History/Evolution
of "Emergency Management."

[Yellow shadow highlights topics mentioned by 3 or more sources.]{.mark}

+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| **Topic**                         | *    | **     | **wa  | **FEMA   |
|                                   | *ICM | haddow | ugh** | IS 1:    |
|                                   | a**[ | and    | [^11] | E        |
|                                   | ^8]* | bu     | **(20 | mergency |
|                                   | */** | llock* | 00)** | Manage   |
|                                   |      | *[^10] |       | r**[^12] |
|                                   | **   | **(2   |       |          |
|                                   | Drab | 003)** |       |          |
|                                   | ek** |        |       |          |
|                                   |      |        |       |          |
|                                   | **   |        |       |          |
|                                   | (199 |        |       |          |
|                                   | 1)** |        |       |          |
|                                   | [^9] |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| Volunteer fire brigades           |      |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| [1803 New Hampshire Congressional | [Y   | [Y]{   | []{.  | [Y       |
| Act/fire assistance; first piece  | ]{.m | .mark} | mark} | ]{.mark} |
| of "national disaster             | ark} |        |       |          |
| legislation"]{.mark}              |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1871 Great Chicago Fire           |      |        | Y     | Y        |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1889 Johnstown Flood              | Y    |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1906 San Francisco Earthquake     |      |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1916 US Army Appropriation        | Y    |        |       |          |
| Act/Council of National Defense   |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1933 Reconstruction Finance       | Y    | Y      |       |          |
| Corporation                       |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1933 Tennessee Valley Authority   |      | Y      | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1934 Bureau of Public             | Y    | Y      |       |          |
| Roads/repair highways and bridges |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1936 Flood Control Act            | Y    |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1939 Roosevelt establishes Office | Y    |        |       |          |
| of Emergency Management           |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1941 Roosevelt established Office | Y    |        |       |          |
| of Civil Defense                  |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1945-50 US Strategic Bombing      | Y    |        |       |          |
| Survey                            |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1949 Truman/National Security     | Y    |        |       |          |
| Resources Board & Federal Civil   |      |        |       |          |
| Defense Administration            |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1950 Federal Disaster Act[^13]    | Y    |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1950s FCDA, Office of Defense     |      | Y      |       |          |
| Mobilization/DOD                  |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1950s Hazel, Diane, Audrey        |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| [1950s Civil Defense Days]{.mark} | [Y   | [Y]{   | [Y]{. | [Y       |
|                                   | ]{.m | .mark} | mark} | ]{.mark} |
|                                   | ark} |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1958 Office of Civil and Defense  |      | Y      |       |          |
| Mobilization                      |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1960-61 Donna, Carla              |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1960s Hebgen Lake Earthquake      |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1961 Office of Civil Defense/Dept | Y    |        |       |          |
| of Defense                        |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| [1960s Betsy, Camille,            | [Y   | [Y]{   | [Y]{. | [        |
| Agnes]{.mark}[^14]                | ]{.m | .mark} | mark} | ]{.mark} |
|                                   | ark} |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1960s Kennedy/Office of Emergency |      | Y      |       |          |
| Preparedness                      |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1960s Kennedy era/civil conflict  |      |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1962 Ash Wednesday Storm          |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| [1964 Alaskan                     | [Y   | [Y]{   | [Y]{. | [        |
| Earthquake]{.mark}[^15]           | ]{.m | .mark} | mark} | ]{.mark} |
|                                   | ark} |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1968 National Flood Insurance Act |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1969-70[^16] Disaster Relief Act  | Y    |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1971 San Fernando EQ              | Y    | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1972 OCD renamed Defense Civil    | Y    |        |       |          |
| Preparedness Agency               |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1972 Flood Insurance Act          |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1973 OEP abolished; Federal       | Y    |        |       |          |
| Preparedness Agency and Federal   |      |        |       |          |
| Disaster Assistance               |      |        |       |          |
| Administration created            |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1974 Disaster Relief Act          |      | Y      | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1970s Crisis Relocation Planning  | Y    |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1977-8 National Governor's        | Y    | Y      | Y     |          |
| Association Report                |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| [1979 Carter/FEMA]{.mark}         | [Y   | [Y]{   | [Y]{. | [        |
|                                   | ]{.m | .mark} | mark} | ]{.mark} |
|                                   | ark} |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| Describes 1970s reorganization of |      | Y      |       |          |
| multiple agencies under FEMA;     |      |        |       |          |
| Reorganization Plan Number 3 (3   |      |        |       |          |
| CFR 1978; 5 U.S. Code 903) and    |      |        |       |          |
| Executive Order 12127 followed by |      |        |       |          |
| Executive Order 12148             |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| Louis Giuffrida appointed to      | Y    | Y      | []{.  | [        |
| direct FEMA                       |      |        | mark} | ]{.mark} |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| Reagan appoints General Julius    |      | Y      |       |          |
| Becton to direct FEMA             |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1980s Al Gore hearings on FEMA    |      |        |       |          |
| 1980s                             |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1970s Love Canal, TMI             | Y    | Y      |       |          |
|                                   | (b   | (TMI)  |       |          |
|                                   | oth) |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| [1980s FEMA's "problems"]{.mark}  | [Y   | [Y]{   | [Y]{. | [        |
|                                   | ]{.m | .mark} | mark} | ]{.mark} |
|                                   | ark} |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1980s NEHRP legislation/lays      |      | Y      |       |          |
| foundation for FRP                |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1980s Al Gore/Congressional       |      | Y      |       |          |
| hearings                          |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1989 Hugo and Loma Prieta         |      | Y      | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1989-1992 FEMA in trouble/GAO     |      | Y      |       |          |
| investigation                     |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| Stafford Act[^17]                 |      | Y      | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1992 Andrew and Iniki             |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1992 First WTC attack             |      | Y      | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1993 Clinton/appoints James Lee   |      | Y      | Y     |          |
| Witt/later elevated to cabinet    |      |        |       |          |
| level[^18]                        |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1993-2001 The "Witt Revolution"   |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1993 NAPA Report "Coping with     |      |        | Y     |          |
| Disaster"                         |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| No date given, Exxon Valdez       |      |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1993 Midwest Floods               |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1994 Northridge EQ                |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1995 Oklahoma City                |      | Y      | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1995-96 Nunn-Lugar                |      | Y      | Y     |          |
| Legislation[^19]                  |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1997 FEMA Strategic Plan          |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1990s Mitigation/Project Impact   |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1998 Terms WMD and crisis         |      |        | Y     |          |
| management appear (linked to FBI) |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 1999 Oklahoma tornadoes           |      |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 2000 Y2K                          |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 2001 Bush appoints Joe Allbaugh   |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 2001 Nisqually EQ                 |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| 200? Office of National           |      | Y      |       |          |
| Preparedness recreated by         |      |        |       |          |
| Allbaugh                          |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| September 11, 2001                |      | Y      |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| No date, Department of Homeland   |      | Y      |       |          |
| Security established              |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| American Red Cross                | Y    |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| SBA                               |      |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| U.S. Army Corps/floodplain        |      |        | Y     |          |
| management/National Flood         |      |        |       |          |
| Program[^20]                      |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| Includes content outside of U.S.  | Min  | No     | N/A   | N/A      |
|                                   | imal |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| Contributions of behavioral       | Y    |        | Y     |          |
| sciences                          |      |        |       |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| US Fire Academy                   |      |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| NETC/EMI                          |      |        | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+
| IAEM/NEMA/TIEMS[^21]              |      | Y      | Y     |          |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+

[^1]: Title based on book by Dennis Mileti and offered with respect to
    the author.

[^2]: Taken directly from links embedded in the FEMA Higher Education
    Project web site, http://www.fema.gov.

[^3]: Same as Table 1. Includes master's level programs and related
    degree listings.

[^4]: L. Falkiner. 2003. Inventory of Disaster Management Education in
    Major Canadian Universities. Institute for Catastrophic Loss
    Reduction.

[^5]: L. Falkiner. 2003. Inventory of Disaster Management Education in
    Major Canadian Universities. Institute for Catastrophic Loss
    Reduction.

[^6]: Terms and dates were drawn from the texts.

[^7]: For example, MCEER, PEER, and MAE can be viewed or linked from
    http://peer.berkeley.edu.

[^8]: Drabek, Thomas E. and Gerard J. Hoetmer, editors. 1991. ""The
    evolution of emergency management." By Drabek, pp. 3-29 in Emergency
    Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. Washington
    DC: International City Management Association.

[^9]: Also includes a detailed Figure on the development of federal
    organizations with emergency management responsibilities

[^10]: Haddow, George D. and Jane A. Bullock. 2003. Introduction to
    Emergency Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Consulted chapter
    1, "The historical context of emergency management."

[^11]: Waugh, William L. Jr. 2000. Living with Hazards, Dealing with
    Disasters: an introduction to emergency management. Armonk NY: M.E.
    Sharpe. Consulted chapters 1 and 2 for this table.

[^12]: Accessed September 2, 2003,
    [http://www.fema.gov](http://www.fema.gov/). Independent Study
    Course 1: Emergency Manager: An orientation to the position.

[^13]: Also referred to as the Disaster Relief Act of 1950 (Waugh 2000)

[^14]: 2-3 of these were mentioned in each text.

[^15]: Haddow and Bullock mention the west coast tsunami.

[^16]: 1969 in ICMA; 1970 in Waugh.

[^17]: No date given in Haddow and Bullock.

[^18]: Cabinet position mentioned in Haddow and Bullock, no date given.

[^19]: Dates vary between Haddow and Bullock (1995) and Waugh (1996).

[^20]: Efforts referred to as National Flood Program by Waugh include
    the 1936 Flood Control Act, the Disaster Relief Act of 1950, as well
    as US Army Corps of Engineer and TVA efforts.

[^21]: One or more are mentioned.