**Sociology, Disasters and Emergency Management:**

**History, Contributions, and Future Agenda\***

Thomas E. Drabek, Ph.D.

John Evans Professor, Emeritus

Department of Sociology and Criminology

University of Denver

Denver, CO 80208-2948

<zted@dd-do.com>

**Abstract**

This chapter will summarize the contributions of sociologists to the
study of disasters and the profession of emergency management. While
some non-U.S.A. references will be made, most of the analysis will be
limited to studies conducted within the U.S.A. by American scholars. The
essay is divided into five sections: 1) history, including key
literature reviews, definitions and issues of controversy; 2) major
contributions to the knowledge base; 3) key points of overlap with other
disciplines; 4) recommendations for emergency managers; and 5) future
research agenda.

\*Chapter to appear in *Disciplines, Disasters and Emergency Management:
The Convergence and Divergence of Concepts, Issues and Trends in the
Research Literature* edited by David A. McEntire, Emmitsburg, Maryland:
Emergency Management Institute, Federal Emergency Management Agency
(anticipated 2005). I wish to thank Ruth A. Drabek for her assistance in
the preparation of this chapter.

**Introduction**

Disasters have long been objects of study by sociologists. Indeed, prior
to the 1980s the research literature was dominated by sociologically
oriented analyses, followed by that of social geographers, e.g., Burton,
Kates and White (1993). Given this rich and expansive legacy, this
chapter will be limited to highlights, not detail. Readers desiring

additional depth are advised to review the works referenced throughout.
It should be noted that many important sociological contributions have
been made by scholars researching disasters that occurred outside the
U.S.A. Some of special importance are noted in this chapter, but most
are not. The chapter is divided into five sections: 1) history,
including key literature reviews, definitions and issues of controversy;
2) major contributions to the knowledge base; 3) key points of overlap
with other disciplines; 4) recommendations for emergency managers; and
5) future research agenda.

**History**

While there are many definitions of sociology, most would agree that the
focus of the discipline is the study of human interaction. Hence, when
disaster strikes, sociologists have asked, "how do humans respond?" From
the outset, starting with Prince's (1920) initial study of the collision
of two ships in the Halifax harbor (December 6, 1917), this has been the
key question that defined the sociological research agenda. The
fundamental epistemological assumption was that while all disaster
events were unique historic episodes, comparative analyses could
identify elements of commonality, i.e., modal patterns of behavior.
Literature reviews have summarized studies of individuals and their
social units, ranging from families, to organizations to communities,
e.g., Barton 1969; Dynes 1970; Quarantelli and Dynes 1977; Kreps 1984;
Drabek 1986). More recently, under the auspices of the FEMA Higher
Education Project, Drabek (1996b, 2004) prepared detailed literature
summaries for instructors of courses focused on the social dimensions of
disaster. Collectively, these numerous synthesizing statements integrate
the research conclusions from hundreds of post-disaster field studies.
While preparedness and mitigation activities have been studied, the
total aggregate of such inquires, like those examining "root causes" of
disaster, pale in comparison to the number of post-event assessments
(e.g., preparedness studies include Quarantelli 1984; mitigation studies
include Drabek et al. 1983; for assessments of "root causes" see Enarson
et al. 2003).

Sociologists have argued that disasters may expose the key values and
structures that define communities and the societies they comprise.
Social factors that encourage both stability and change may thereby be
documented. Thus, both core behavior patterns and the social factors
that constrain them may be illuminated by the study of disaster. And
while cultural differences may be associated with substantial variations
in response, cultural similarities have been documented by those
comparing the U.S.A. profile to responses by the British (e.g., Parker
2000), Australians (e.g., Britton and Clapham 1991) and others (e.g.,
Parr on New Zealand, 1997-1998 Domborsky and Schorr on Germany, 1986).
In contrast, results from the former Soviet Union (Portiriev 1998b),
Japan (Yamamoto and Quarantelli 1982), Italy (Quarantelli and Pelanda
1989) and elsewhere (e.g., Bates and Peacock 1992; Oliver-Smith and
Hoffman 1999) have documented the role of culture in pattern variation.

Typically, sociologists have differentiated *disasters* from *hazards*.
Following most, for example, Drabek (2004) defined these terms as
follows. A disaster is ". . . an event in which a community undergoes
severe such losses to persons and/or property that the resources
available within the community are severely taxed." (Drabek 2004,
Student Handout 2-1, p. 1). This conceptualization is consistent with
these proposed or implied by the earliest research teams, e.g., Fritz
1961; Dynes 1970. In contrast, a hazard is " . . . a condition with the
potential for harm to the community or environment." (Drabek 2004,
Student Handout 2-1, p. 1). For sociologists, the term *disasters*
referred to specific events like Hurricane Jeanne (2004) whereas
*hazards* define a class of threats like hurricanes, tornadoes,
earthquakes, and so on. Thus, they refer to the hurricane hazard or the
tornado hazard that reflects the risk, vulnerability, or exposure
confronting families, communities or societies.

Flowing from these definitions, most sociologists view emergency
management as " . . . the process by which the uncertainties that exist
in potentially hazardous situations can be minimized and public safety
maximized. The goal is to limit the costs of emergencies or disasters
through the implementation of a series of strategies and tactics
reflecting the full life cycle of disaster, i.e., preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation." (Drabek 2004, Student Handout 1-3,
p. 1).

These terms have provided an important frame of reference for dozens of
scholars who have sought to use the perspectives, concepts, and methods
that define the broad field of sociology in their study of disaster.
These applications have been nurtured by major research centers, most
notably the Disaster Research Center. Since its founding at The Ohio
State University in 1963, this unit has encouraged, integrated, and
applied these tools to the study of disaster. After its relocation to
the University of Delaware in 1985, the process of rapid arrival to
disaster scenes continued. Implementation of a "quick response" funding
process that was coordinated through the Natural Hazards Research and
Applications Information Center at the University of Colorado has
enabled dozens of scholars to gather perishable materials. At times
these quick response field visits have facilitated larger and more
focused studies. Important policy insights and recommendations have been
proposed to emergency management professionals following such work.

Over time, however, key issues and concerns have precipitated much
debate. Among these, two are most fundamental, and clearly are pushing
alternative research agenda in very different directions. These issues
reflect: 1) different definitions of the term "disaster", and 2) degree
of focus on vulnerability and/or risk based paradigms.

Clearly there are basic and very real differences in viewpoints as to
how the core concept of "disaster" ought to be defined. To some, like
Murria (2004) the matter may best be pursued by an engineer or other
non-sociologically oriented professional. So by comparing numerous
dictionaries reflecting many different languages ranging from English,
French, Spanish, Portuguese, and so on, the origins and nuances of the
term "disaster" can be compared. Thus, within the Romance languages such
as Spanish or French, "the noun *disaster* has magical, astral,
supernatural and religious connotations\..." (p. 127). For others, like
the Poles and Czechs, " . . . the translation of the noun *disaster*
comes from the translation of the English word of Greek origin
*catastrophe*, i.e., catastrophe." (p. 127). In contrast, Dutch,
Japanese, Arabs and others relate the term to such concepts as "great
loss," "terrible happening," "big accident" or other such phrases that
convey misfortune (p. 127).

Others too continue to wonder what the point of the question is. And so,
even as recently as 2004, statements like the following characterize the
literature. "When a hazard occurs, it exposes a large accumulation of
risk, unleashing unexpected levels of impacts" (Briceño 2004, p. 5).
Despite the differentiations of many others continue to use the terms
"disaster" and "hazard" interchangeably.

Starting with definitions that are event based, many have proposed
differentiations that reflect key analytical features of disasters.
Kreps and Drabek (1996) proposed that some comparative analyses could be
enhanced if disasters were viewed as a special type of social problem.
Four defining features of such events, among others, are: 1) length of
forewarning, 2) magnitude of impact, 3) scope of impact, and 4) duration
of impact (p. 133). Reacting to criticisms from social constructionists
(e.g., Stallings 1995) who emphasize the social processes whereby some
events or threats are collectively defined as public concerns, while
others are not, Kreps and Drabek (1996) emphasized that " . . . the
essence of disaster is the **conjunction** of historical conditions and
social definitions of physical harm and social disruption at the
community or higher levels of analysis." (p. 142; for elaborations see
Kreps 1995a and 1995b).

Such a perspective has led some to propose elaborate typologies of
differentiation whereby "levels" of disaster might be defined with
precision. For example, by placing disaster within a framework of
collective stress, Barton proposed that sources of threat (i.e.,
internal or external), system level impacted (i.e., family,
organization, community), and other such features could differentiate
natural disasters from riots, wars, revolutions and so on. More narrowly
focused, Britton (1987) proposed a "continuum of collective stress"
whereby classes of events could be grouped as either accidents,
emergencies, or disasters (pp. 47-53). Reflective the thinking of his
Russian colleagues and also the U.S.A. research base, Profiriev (1998a),
proposed a typology that integrated numerous analytical criteria whereby
different types of emergencies could be compared. These included such
features as the "gravity of impact's effect" (i.e., emergencies vs.
disasters vs. catastrophic situations); "conflict vs. non-conflict";
"predictability"; "rapidness of spreading' (p. 49). Most recently,
Fischer (2003) has proposed a "disaster scale" that could facilitate
comparative analyses by researchers *and* preparedness activities by
practitioners (pp. 99-106). Drawing an analogy to the use of the Richter
scale for easily communicating the severity of earthquakes, his ten
"disaster categories" are ". . . based upon the degree of **disruption**
and **adjustment** a community(s)/society experiences when we consider
**scale**, **scope** and **duration of time**." Thus, "disaster category
1" is comprised of "everyday emergencies", whereas "disaster category 4"
would be restricted to events of a major scale that impact small towns.
Logically following them are such categories as "DC-8" (i.e., "massive
large city"), DC-9 (i.e., "catastrophe") and DC-10 (i.e.,
"annihilation").

Reflecting his symbolic interactionist theoretical perspective
Quarantelli (1987; 1998) has pressed scholars to retreat from frameworks
focused exclusively on analytical features of crisis events or the
"agents" that "cause" them. Rather, additional research questions ought
to expand the agenda, e.g., what are the social processes whereby
certain types of crisis situations become "legitimate" bases for social
action? Why are there massive relief efforts following a tornado and yet
many resist funding for programs assisting victims of the HIV-virus or
famine?

Drabek (1970, 2000) has proposed that comparisons among disaster field
studies could be integrated more effectively if this question was placed
within a methodological framework. That is, the issue is viewed as one
of "external validity." Researchers must answer "to what can we
generalize?" By using a variety of event based criteria like "length of
forewarning," he documented that the behavior of private business
employees (1999), tourists (1996a) and others varied during evacuations
triggered by hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes. Events reflecting
different criteria were responded to somewhat differently. Of course,
such conclusions from a few field studies await the integrative efforts
of others if disaster research is to be cumulative. And that is another
reason why this key question of definition is so paramount. Implicit in
the question, "What is a disaster?" is a fundamental question of
strategy. That is, which approach will best permit the systematic
accumulation of research findings flowing from separate disaster
studies.

The second key issue confronting sociologists who are studying disasters
pertains to the paradigms used. Most do not elaborate on the theoretical
perspectives that might be guiding their field work although elements of
functionalism, structuralism, symbolic interactionism, and other such
frameworks can be identified. Many have built upon the "collective
stress" framework first outlined by Barton (1969) although the
nomenclature usually is modified. For example, Drabek elaborated on his
"stress-strain perspective" (e.g., 1990, 1999, 2003) which had its
origins in the early DRC studies (e.g., Haas and Drabek 1970, 1973).
Others have pursued the insights of social constructionists and moved
into research agenda that usually are ignored by those rooted within a
collective stress viewpoint. For example, Stallings (1995) carefully
documented the "claims-making activities" of those who have
"manufactured" the earthquake threat. This same perspective permitted
Jenkins (2003) to document the shifting "ownership" of terrorism, both
regarding the "guilty" and the "causes" being used to justify the
killing of others.

In contrast, many (e.g., Mileti 1999) have turned to environmental
studies for help. By emphasizing the social desirability of
"environmentally friendly" disaster mitigation policies, concepts of
"sustainability", and "risk communication", "adoption of hazard
adjustments" and others have redefined the research agenda (Mileti
1980). Community education programs are designed and evaluated
throughout the implementation process so as to guide emergency managers
seeking to have community based disaster mitigation programs that will
encourage development that may better "live with nature" rather than
against. Mileti (1999), pp. 30-35) proposed that six core principles
delineated this "Sustainable Hazards Mitigation Approach", e.g.,
"Maintain and, if possible, enhance environmental quality" (p. 31);
"Foster local resilience to and responsibility for disasters" (p. 32);
and "Adopt a consensus-building approach, starting at the local level."
(p. 34).

Finally, some have proposed a paradigm shift reflecting a focus on the
concept of vulnerability (e.g., Wisner 2001). Citing such scholars as
Mileti (1999) and Geis (2003), McEntire (2004) begins a recent article
by stating that: "Scholars interested in disaster studies are calling
for a paradigm shift." (p. 23). Among the reasons for such a shift, are
"15 tenets" that include such observations as: "We have control over
vulnerability, not natural hazards" (p. 23), "Vulnerability occurs at
the intersection of the physical and social environments" (p. 24); "
Variables of vulnerability exhibit distinct patterns" (p. 25). This last
"tenet" was amplified significantly by Enarson et al. (2003) who
designed an instructional guide for college and university professors
entitled *A Social Vulnerability Approach to Disasters*. Building on the
poignant criticisms of scholars like Hewitt (1983), this team nicely
spelled out the basic elements of a social vulnerability paradigm and
specified how it differs from "the dominate view" of disasters, e.g.,
focus on socio-economic and political factors rather than the physical
processes of hazard; goal is to reduce vulnerability rather than damage.
By documenting the differential and changing patterns of risk and
vulnerability, long term levels injustice are highlighted. And so the
"root causes" of disaster are exposed as are the policies and practices
of those who benefit most by the existing social structure. Rather than
accept differential exposures and losses by the politically weak, be
they female, aged, or ethnic minorities, those adopting this paradigm
question the status quo. They ask, "Why must the patterns of greed and
financial corruption continue to perpetuate so-called disasters wherein
those most vulnerable are disproportionately hurt?"

When one starts from a social vulnerability perspective, issues of
disaster take on a very different look. For example, how did the attacks
on the World Trade Center (2001) become defined as a "national"
disaster? Oyola-Yemaiel and Wilson (2003) insightfully propose that " .
. . we do not consider the terrorist attack itself as a disaster (system
failure), we believe that the generalized conception of disaster as well
as how the media and the authorities responded to the event illustrates
*symptoms* of system failure." (p. 27) Hence, this perspective pushes
researchers to examine the nature of vulnerability to terrorism in
highly differentiated and interdependent societies. And in so doing, the
nature of proposed solutions reflect root causes and basic societal
processes that heretofore have rarely been the focus of disaster
researchers. Oyola-Yemaiel and Wilson (2003), for example, offer the
following.

> ". . . rather than immense and impersonal business far away where the
> fate of the individual, the family, and the local community are in the
> hands of third parties, society should move forward to a social
> exchange that would enable local communities to have interdependence
> with the national system as well as independence of operation from it.
> At this point each community can sustain life independently outside
> the whole if needed. In so doing, the communities could become
> isolated from the threat of terrorism." (p. 37).

This case study underscores insightful conclusions proposed by Bankoff
(2003). In contrast to western cultural norms, " . . . vulnerability has
been proposed as the key to understanding a novel conceptualization of
risk that attempts to break with the more causal, mechanistic attitudes
that have characterized the relationship between human societies and
their environments over past centuries . . ." (p. 6). Furthermore,
"Social systems generate unequal exposure to risk by making some people
more prone to disaster than others and that these inequalities in risk
and opportunity are largely a function of the power relations operative
in every society." (p. 6) Echoing the observations of Oyola-Yemaiel and
Wilson (2003), Bankoff proposed that " . . . complexity may be just as
much a source of vulnerability as it is an answer to risk." (p. 20).
Thus, " . . . attempts to control the environment need to be replaced by
approaches that emphasize ways of dealing with unexpected events, ones
that stress flexibility, adaptability, resilience and capacity." (p.
20).

**Major Contributions**

Beyond the integrative reviews noted above, e.g., Dynes (1970), Barton
(1969) and Drabek (1986), several collections summarize substantive
contributions by sociologists to the study of disaster. Detailed
statements are available in the collection edited by Dynes et al. (1987)
that focus on such topics as: "Disaster Preparedness and Response Among
Minority Citizens" (Perry); "Human Ecology" (Faupel); "Collective
Behavior" (Wenger); "Organizational Change" (Stallings); "Emergent
Structures" (Drabek) and "Social Change" (Bates and Peacock). Similarly,
the collection of essays prepared in honor of E.L. Quarantelli that was
edited by Dynes and Tierney (1994) also presents excellent summaries of
both specific studies and broad perspectives such as "An Ecological
Approach to Disasters" (Bates and Pelanda); "Public Risk Communication"
(Fitzpatrick and Mileti); and "Post Disaster Sheltering and Housing"
(Bolin).

As the diversity and depth of these topics indicates, a summary of
contributions to the knowledge base is far beyond the limited space of
this essay. But four broad topics stand out when a long term view is
applied: 1) disaster myths; 2) research methods; 3) theory and 4) social
criticism.

**Disaster Myths**. Historically, the most significant contribution of
sociological research on disasters has been the correction of distorted
images of human response (e.g., Quarantelli 1960; Quarantelli and Dynes
1972). Images of panic, looting, and other such anti-social behavior
were debunked and properly labeled as myths. That is not to claim that
such forms of anti-social behavior never occur. They do. But the image
of such behavior as the prevailing response is an exaggeration that
simply is wrong. Both the public and emergency officials were found to
support such erroneous notions (Wenger et al. 1975; Wenger et al. 1980;
Fischer 1998). One of the most widely circulated documents among local
emergency managers outlined these myths and the evidence that debunked
them (Dynes et al. 1972). Today, many emergency management professionals
point to disaster myths as the first item of substantive knowledge they
associate with sociology.

**Research** **Methods**. Several excellent statements have been
published that highlight unique contributions designed by sociologists
studying disasters, e.g., Cisin and Clark 1962, Drabek 1970, Mileti
1987, Stallings 2002. Concerns raised by Killian (1956) in the 1950s
(see the summary of his monograph in Stallings 2002, pp. 49-93) are a
sharp contrast to a range of more current issues such as those
pertaining to electronic media raised by Dombrowsky (2002, pp. 305-319)
or the uses of geographic information systems described by Nash (2002,
pp. 320-333). Following the dictum that interesting questions should be
pursued and appropriate methods designed, Drabek (2002) summarized
numerous studies he directed that reflected varied types of
methodological innovation. Some, like the analysis of police and fire
department audio recordings built on unobtrusive data that many had not
thought about collecting. Other innovations ranged from the construction
of an elaborate police communications simulation to devising ways to
track down tourists who were victims of Hurricane Andrew, Iniki, and
other disasters.

Methodological innovations continue to be made as researchers seek to
improve their understanding of disaster response and impact. Homan's
(2003) recent explanation of the use of autobiography is a case
illustration. Using materials at the Mass-Observation Archive at the
University of Sussex, she demonstrated the utility of this approach and
the range of new substantive research questions it permits. For example,
"The 1989 Mass-Observation Directive sought to gauge, from personal
perspectives, what people thought of the role of the media in disasters
and the way in which they are reported, as well as issues apportioning
blame and post-disaster relief work." (p. 64). If comparable materials
were within the U.S.A. before and after the World Trade Center attacks
in 1993 and 2001, important tracking of public perceptions could be
available. Comparative analyses of shifts and continuities following
earthquakes, hurricanes, and the like, could be most instructive in
understanding the "manufacturing" processes being used by various groups
within the society.

**Theory**. Evolving from years of analysis of interviews conducted by
DRC staff, Kreps and his associates have moved toward a generalized
theory of disaster response (e.g., Kreps 1987; 1989; Kreps et al. 1994).
When disaster strikes, emergent networks are born to handle the unique
demands generated. Early on in the life of the DRC, a typology of
organized disaster responses was formulated (Dynes 1970). Many (e.g.,
Stallings 1978) discovered that this typology helped make sense of the
complex responses they observed in the field. The typology reflected two
criteria: structure and tasks. Thus, established organized response
units (Type I) reflected old structures being used to accomplish regular
tasks. Conversely, emergent organized response units (Type II) reflected
new structures being used to accomplish non-regular tasks. Expanding and
extending units reflected non-regular tasks with old structures (Type
II) or regular tasks with new structures (Type III). Kreps and his
associates coded hundreds of DRC interviews so as to document the
patterns of social structure that emerged during responses to disasters
resulting from such agents as tornadoes, hurricanes, and the like. Their
structural code reflected four key analytic qualities, i.e., domains,
tasks, human and material resources, and activities. Their preliminary
theoretical framework specified that various exogenous factors, e.g.,
event qualities were followed by social processes that defined the
post-event organizing behavior which in turn produced various outcomes
that could be assessed at both the individual and structural level.
Their meticulous work lead them to conclude that the DRC typology was
both an efficient and effective tool for understanding disaster
behavior. Furthermore, if ". . . specifies nicely a micro-macro link
between the individual and social structure." (Kreps et al. 1994, p.
191).

Building on the collective stress perspective noted above, Drabek (2003)
formulated a model for predicting the relative effectiveness of disaster
responses. This work paralleled the logic of the Kreps team, but
introduced different concepts. Local emergency managers were viewed as
being nested within state and federal systems that changed over time
reflecting perceptions of threats, government policies, demographic
trends, and other such factors (pp. 147-152). By implementing a series
of managerial strategies, various forms of interagency networks are
nurtured which spring into action when disaster threatens. Use or misuse
of 26 specific coordination strategies predict the shape of the emergent
response and its effectiveness. While far from complete, future
comparative research along these lines will provide the foundation
required for scientifically based theories of emergency management.

Finally, as Dynes (2002, 2003) has documented, social capital theory
offers many important insights. This analysis was extended by Nakagawa
and Shaw (2004) in their case study of reconstruction following the 1995
devastating earthquake in Kobe, Japan. Their results clearly documented
that the high level of trust in local leaders by the community was the
major factor that facilitated acceptance of the collective decisions
made throughout the recovery process. They concluded that ". . . social
capital and leadership in the community are the basic attributes, which
are universal in nature, irrespective of the development stages of the
country." (p. 29).

**Social Criticism**. A final area of contribution has taken the form of
social criticism. Reflecting its historical roots, sociologists have
offered "observations" about disaster responses that have highlighted
fundamental flaws in both response and policy. This practice has
reflected DRC publications since its origin. In its first publication,
for example, Drabek, pinpointed "operational problems" stemming from
inadequate inter-organizational coordination and communication (e.g.,
1968, pp. 155-169). Years later (Drabek 1996a) reemphasized that
business executives need to "resist threat denial" (1996a, p. 244), "do
not overreact" (1996a, p. 245), and "debunk the panic myth" (1996a, p.
245). Dynes (1994, 1983) repeatedly has critiqued the planning and
preparedness actions practiced by many who continue to fail because
their top-down approach is fundamentally flawed, rooted in assumptions
reflecting myth rather than research results.

Most recently, the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) has been
found lacking. For example, Major and Atwood (2004) documented that only
49 percent of U.S.A. citizens surveyed in April, 2003 (p. 82) responded
that the system was "useful." Ambiguity in the announcements was the
major complaint and it had real consequences. "The ambiguity of such
announcements leaves the public with but one choice: not to prepare."
(p. 97). Studies like these led Aguirre (2004) to a highly critical
view.

"The current Homeland Security Advisory System does not draw from years
of social science study and does not benefit the nation. It is not a
warning system. At best, HSAS is a mitigation and anticipatory public
relations tool." (p. 112).

**Disciplinary Overlaps**

Sociologists studying disasters frequently have integrated both theory
and methodological tools reflective of other disciplines into their
work. Indeed, the first major textbook on emergency management (Drabek
and Hoetmer 1991), reflected a blending of concepts, conclusions, and
analyses from sociology, public administration, and a wide variety of
other disciplines. Such points of overlap within the literature at large
are varied and numerous. The following *illustrations* document the
point.

**Response**. A core theme in the analysis of disaster response is the
concept of emergence, e.g., Drabek and McEntire 2002, 2003. Quarantelli
(1996) summarized many of the key insights that had been accumulating
over the years as scholars like Stallings (1978), Weller (1972), and
Neal (1984) examined such dynamics. Most recently, Mendoça and Wallace
(2004) have combined these insights with those from social psychologists
like Weick (1993), and offered important new observations based on
detailed examination of DRC interviews after Hurricane Camille (1969).
In so doing they have developed a new methodology to specify the types
of data required to document the "where, when and how" that
improvisation occurs during disaster responses.

**Recovery**. Assessments of long-term impacts of disaster on
individuals and communities illustrate, the close links between
sociology, psychology, economics, and other disciplines. Drabek (2004)
summarized numerous studies wherein various theoretical frameworks were
used to document the lasting psychic pains following the *Exxon Valdez*
oil spill (Arata et al. 2000), Hurricane Floyd (Willigen 2001), the 1994
Northridge Earthquake (Siegel et al. 1999), the 1995 bombing of the
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (Benight et al. 2000)
and other disasters. While controversy remains regarding the relative
efficacy of alternative treatment modalities (NIMH 2002, p. 9), the
evidence is clear that most individuals cope well with even the worst of
events. For some, however, the lingering pain of loss and fear continue
although some interventions such as the "critical incident stress
debrief" may offer promise (e.g., Mitchell and Everly 2000). Economic
and demographic shifts following such events as Hurricane Andrew (e.g.,
Peacock et al. 1987), have recast earlier "no-effect" conclusions
reached by others (e.g., Rossi et al. 1978; Wright and Rossi 1981).
Short-term effects on such social phenomena as marriage rates (e.g.,
Cohan and Cole 2002) regarding Hurricane Hugo), transportation patterns
(e.g., Edwards et al. 2000 regarding Hurricane Floyd) and other social
phenomena continue to be documented as does increased ethnic inequality
such as that which occurred after Hurricane Andrew (Morrow and Peacock
1997). Future multidisciplinary collaboration will be required if the
processes and outcomes disaster recovery are to be better understood.

**Preparedness**. Following extensive study of tourism evacuation
behavior (e.g., Drabek 1996a), FEMA supported Drabek's effort to team
with faculty of the School of Travel Industry Management, University of
Hawaii at Manoa (Drabek and Gee, 2000). An emergency management
instructor guide was created for faculty within departments of tourism,
hospitality, restaurant and travel management. This facilitated the
diffusion of knowledge from the social sciences, especially sociology,
into this professional area whose businesses reflect a catastrophic
level of vulnerability (Drabek 1994).

Diffusion of innovations has long been a focal point of sociologists and
communications researchers (e.g., Rogers 1962). Drabek (1991) documented
the social history of the adoption and implementation of microcomputers
into several local and state emergency management agencies during the
late 1980s. Problematical aspects of such adoptions were specified by
Quarantelli (1997). His observations contrast sharply with the
advantages of such technology that are proposed by those coming from
other disciplinary perspectives, e.g., Stephenson and Anderson 1997;
Gruntfest and Weber, 1998.

**Mitigation**. Learning from the wisdom of such social geographers as
Gilbert White, Mileti (1980) formulated a general paradigm for assessing
human adjustments to the risks associated with environmental extremes.
Over the years, his work matured so that by 1999 he was able to present
a well developed framework of a "sustainable hazards mitigation
approach" (Mileti 1999, pp. 31-35). His approach has not been without
criticism, however, and scholars like Aguirre (2002) have questioned
both the content and direction. Others, like McEntire recognize both the
strengths and weaknesses of applying sustainability to the study of
disasters (McEntire and Floyd, 2003), but he is concerned that the
perspective is not holistic as implied by those who espouse it (McEntire
et. al., 2002, pp. 270-272).

**Emergency Manager Recommendations**

As is evident from the above analysis, sociologists have offered
recommendations to emergency managers for decades. Many of these were
codified in the text edited by Drabek and Hoetmer (1991). These ideas
built on the continuing stream of publications produced by DRC staff,
graduates, and sociologists located at other universities. Most
important among the recommendations are such principles as the
following.

-   An all-hazards approach is essential (Drabek and Hoetmer 1991).

-   Planning and preparedness activities are continuous processes, not
    goals to be accomplished and put aside (Dynes et al. 1972).

-   Social science knowledge, not myths, should guide program
    activities, priorities, and implementation strategies (Quarantelli
    and Dynes 1972).

-   If disaster plans are to be relevant guides for the behavioral
    response, they must be developed by those who will implement them
    (Dynes and Drabek 1994).

-   Managing emergency responses requires the implementation of
    theoretical models that are resource based rather than authority
    based (Dynes 1994; Neal and Phillips 1995; Drabek 2003).

This last principle reflects another point of disciplinary overlap and
points the way for a future research agenda. Writing from the
perspective of a political scientist, Sylves (2004) stated the point
with succinctness. "When it comes to the field of emergency management,
the aim should be to develop new theory or adapt old theory to produce
manageable policy. . . . the field must advance through the production
of codified knowledge widely diffused to anyone who chooses to learn
it." (p. 32).

These basic recommendations, and others like them, are being implemented
in local emergency management agencies and related units of government
more frequently than at any other time in the history of the nation. A
recent write-up by a utility security manager in Bradenton, Florida is
but one of dozens of illustrations that could be cited. In response to
the federal mandates which amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, i.e.,
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002, Brian
Sharkey (2004) pressed for changes. Among the steps taken, all of which
reflect the principles listed above, were these.

-   "At the outset, the plan was developed with input from the
    department's senior staff. These are the people who are responsible
    for carrying out the plan, so they must have input and ownership."
    (p. 7)

-   "Local emergency response agencies were involved in plan
    development. This ". . . allowed the emergency response agencies to
    integrate their plan with ours." (p. 7)

-   "The plan is always considered an unfinished product. It has been
    made an active and evolving part of our working environment, and is
    not just another dust collector." (p. 7)

Unfortunately, vulnerabilities and risks are accelerating at rates that
far exceed such increased capacities due to a whole host of social,
demographic, technological, and political factors. So while much has
been accomplished through applications of sociological research
findings, the net result has been a society at increased risk. And
globally, the situation is far worse.

**Future Research Agenda**

To celebrate the 40^th^ anniversary of the founding of the Disaster
Research Center (DRC), numerous scholars gathered to reflect on the past
and propose directions for the future (Rodríguez et al. 2004). At the
end of their two day conference, they identified a list of research
priorities. Among these was a vision of increased "globalization," more
focus on vulnerability and development, increased multi and
interdisciplinary research, emerging technologies, special population
impacts especially children (and race, ethnic, gender, class and age
inequalities), and new complex threats as represented by terrorist
attacks (pp. 130-131). This listing and the elaborations provided are
invaluable to any who might formulate their own research agenda. From
this and other such efforts (e.g., Anderson and Mattingly 1991; Simpson
and Howard 2001), two key themes merit priority.

1\. *Alternative theoretical perspectives should be elaborated,
encouraged, and compared*. Starting with the social problem orientation
proposed by Kreps and Drabek (1996), disasters must be placed within the
broader context of public policy, perception, and history. Similarly,
analyses must be continued of the unique and continuing social
injustices reflective in the inequalities of race, gender, age, etc.
that are highlighted by those advocating social vulnerability
perspectives (e.g., Enarson et al. 2003). So too must the insights from
Mileti (1999) and others whose focus on mitigation led them to see the
wisdom of the breadth of perspective inherent in sustainability theory.
Different research questions may best be pursued through one of those
perspectives or some other. The field will develop best through
expansion, not premature closure.

2\. *A global, rather than a national, focus must be developed*. There
are many reasons why a global perspective must be nurtured. First, it is
through cross-societal comparison that the issues of external validity
can best be addressed (Drabek 2000; Peacock 1997). Second, as Dynes
(2004) pointed out so effectively, the majority of disaster victims
reside in underdeveloped countries where few research teams have
ventured. Third, links between disaster consequences and other events,
like resettlements caused by World Bank mitigation projects, should be
assessed. "Without understanding the impoverishing consequences of
displacement, the inequalities between gainers and losers from such
projects will be amplified and perpetuated: more than a few displaced
people will end up worse off, poorer than before the project came into
their midst." (Cernea 2003, p. 37). Fourth, new threats, like terrorism,
and the vulnerabilities they reflect must be viewed within an
international context if preparedness, response, and mitigation policies
are to be informed effectively. Dynes put it succinctly:

> "One of the other consequences of 9/11 was the effort to remove the
> burkas, which distorted the vision of those in Afghanistan. U.S.
> policy has insisted that we keep our burkas on, ignoring the lessons
> of Hamburg, Hiroshima, and New York." (Dynes 2003, p. 21).
>
> **References**

Aguirre, Benigno E. 2004. "Homeland Security Warnings: Lessons Learned
and Unlearned." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters* 22 (No. 2):103-115.

Anderson, William A. and Shirley Mattingly. 1991. "Future Directions."
Pp. 311-335 in *Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local
Government*, edited by Thomas E. Drabek and Gerard J. Hoetmer.
Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association.

Arata, Catalina M., J. Steven Picou, G. David Johnson and T. Scott
McNally. 2000. "Coping with Technological Disaster: An Application of
the Conservation of Resources Model to the *Exxon Valdez* Oil Spill."
*Journal of Traumatic Stress* 13:23-39.

Bankoff, Greg. 2003. "Vulnerability as a Measure of Change in Society."
*International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 21 (No.
2):5-30.

Barton, Allen H. 1969. *Communities in Disaster: A Sociological Analysis
of Collective Stress Situations.* Garden City, New York: Doubleday and
Company, Inc.

Bates, Frederick L. and Walter G. Peacock. 1987. "Disaster and Social
Change." Pp. 291-330 in *Sociology of Disasters: Contributions of
Sociology to Disaster Research*, edited by Russell R. Dynes, Bruna
DeMarchi, and Carlo Pelanda. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.

Bates, Frederick L. and Carlo Pelanda. 1994. "An Ecological Approach to
Disasters." Pp. 145-159 in *Disasters, Collective Behavior, and Social
Organization*, edited by Russell R. Dynes and Kathleen J. Tierney.
Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press.

Benight, Charles C., Robert W. Freyaldenhoven, Joel Hughes, John M.
Ruiz, Tiffany A. Zoschke and William R. Lovallo. 2000. "Coping
Self-Efficacy and Psychological Distress Following the Oklahoma City
Bombing." *Journal of Applied Social Psychology* 30:1331-1344.

Bolin, Robert. 1994. "Postdisaster Sheltering and Housing: Social
Processes in Response and Recovery." Pp. 115-127 in *Disasters,
Collective Behavior, and Social Organization*, edited by Russell R.
Dynes and Kathleen J. Tierney. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware
Press.

Briceño, Sālvano. 2004. "Global Challenges in Disaster Reduction."
*Australian Journal of Emergency Management* 19 (No. 1):3-5.

Britton, Neil. R. 1987. "Toward a Reconceptualization of Disaster for
the Enhancement of Social Preparation." Pp. 31-55 in *Sociology of
Disasters: Contributions of Sociology to Disaster Research*, edited by
Russell R. Dynes, Bruna DeMarchi, and Carlo Pelanda. Milano, Italy:
Franco Angeli.

Britton, Neil R. and Kathleen Clapham. 1991. *Annotated Bibliography of
Australian Hazards and Disaster Literature, 1969‑1989*.(Volume 1: Author
Indexed; Volume 2: System Level Indexed). Armidale, New South Wales,
Australia: Centre for Disaster Management, University of New England.

Burton, Ian, Robert W. Kates and Gilbert F. White. 1993. *The
Environment as Hazard.* 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Publishers, Inc.

Cernea, Michael M. 2003. "For a New Economics of Resettlement: A
Sociological Critique of the Compensation Principle." *International
Social Science Journal* 55:37-45.

Cisin, Ira and Walter B. Clark. 1962. "The Methodological Challenge of
Disaster Research." Pp. 23-47 in *Man and Society in Disaster*, edited
by George W. Baker and Dwight W. Chapman. New York: Basic Books.

Cohan, Catherine L. and Steve W. Cole. 2002. "Life Course Transitions
and Natural Disaster: Marriage, Birth, and Divorce Following Hurricane
Hugo." *Journal of Family Psychology* 16:14-25.

Dombrowsky, Wolf R. 2002. "Methodological Changes and Challenges in
Disaster Research: Electronic Media and the Globalization of Data
Collection." Pp. 305-319 in *Methods of Disaster Research*, edited by
Robert A. Stallings. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Xlibris Corporation.

Dombrowsky, Wolf R. and John K. Schorr. 1986. "Angst and the Masses:
Collective Behavior Research in Germany." 1986. *International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 4:61‑89.

Drabek, Thomas E. 1968. *Disaster in Aisle 13.* College of
Administrative Science. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1970. "Methodology of Studying Disasters: Past Patterns
and Future Possibilities." *American Behavioral Scientist* 13:331‑343.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1986. *Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory
of Sociological Findings.* New York: Springer‑Verlag.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1987. "Emergent Structures." Pp. 190-259 in *Sociology
of Disasters: Contribution of Sociology in Disaster Research*, edited by
Russell R. Dynes, Brune DeMarchi and Carlo Pelanda. Milano, Italy:
Franco Angeli.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1990. *Emergency Management: Strategies for Maintaining
Organizational Integrity*. New York: Springer‑Verlag.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1991. *Microcomputers in Emergency Management:
Implementation of Computer Technology*. Boulder, Colorado: Institute of
Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1996a. *Disaster Evacuation and the Tourist Industry*.
Boulder, Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1996b. *Sociology of Disaster: Instructor Guide*.
Emmitsburg, Maryland: Emergency Management Institute, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. "Disaster Evacuation Response by Tourists and
Other Types of Transients." *International Journal of Public
Administration* 22:655-677.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2000. "The Social Factors that Constrain Human Responses
to Flood Warnings." Pp. 361-376 in *Floods*, (Vol. 1), edited by Dennis
J. Parker. London and New York: Routledge.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2002. "Following Some Dreams: Recognizing Opportunities,
Posing Interesting Questions, and Implementing Alternative Methods." Pp.
127-153 in *Methods of Disaster Research*, edited by Robert A.
Stallings. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Xlibris Corporation.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2003. *Strategies For Coordinating Disaster Responses*.
Boulder, Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2004. *Social Dimensions of Disaster 2^nd^ ed.:
Instructor Guide*. Emmitsburg, Maryland: Emergency Management Institute,
Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Drabek, Thomas E. and Chuck Y. Gee. 2000*. Emergency Management
Principles and Application for Tourism, Hospitality, and Travel
Management Industries: Instructor Guide*. Emmitsburg, Maryland:
Emergency Management Institute, Federal Emergency Management Agency*.*

Drabek, Thomas E. and Gerard J. Hoetmer (eds.). 1991. *Emergency
Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government*. Washington,
D.C.: International City Management Association.

Drabek, Thomas E. and David A. McEntire. 2002. "Emergent Phenomena and
Multiorganizational Coordination in Disasters: Lessons from the Research
Literature." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters*
20:197-224.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2003. "Emergent Phenomena and the Sociology of Disaster:
Lessons, Trends and Opportunities from the Research Literature."
*Disaster Prevention and Management* 12:97-112.

Drabek, Thomas E., Alvin H. Mushkatel, and Thomas S. Kilijanek. 1983.
*Earthquake Mitigation Policy: The Experience of Two States.* Boulder,
Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, The University of Colorado.

Dynes, Russell R. 1983. "Problems in Emergency Planning." *Energy*
8:653‑660.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1994. "Community Emergency Planning: False Assumptions
and Inappropriate Analogies." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies
and Disasters* 12:141‑158.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2002. "The Importance of Social Capital in Disaster
Response." Preliminary Paper #322. Newark, Delaware: Disaster Research
Center, University of Delaware.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2003. "Finding Order in Disorder: Continuities in the
9-11 Response." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters* 21 (No. 3):9-23.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2004. "Expanding the Horizons of Disaster Research."
*Natural Hazards Observer* 28 (No. 4):1-2.

Dynes, Russell R. and Thomas E. Drabek. 1994. "The Structure of Disaster
Research: Its Policy and Disciplinary Implications." *International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 12:5‑23.

Dynes, Russell R., Bruna De Marchi and Carlo Pelanda (eds.). 1987.
*Sociology of Disasters: Contribution of Sociology to Disaster
Research.* Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.

Dynes, Russell, E. L. Quarantelli and Gary A. Kreps. 1972. *A
Perspective on Disaster Planning.* Columbus, Ohio: Disaster Research
Center, The Ohio State University.

Dynes, Russell R. and Kathleen J. Tierney (eds.). 1994. *Disasters,
Collective Behavior and Social Organization*. Newark, Delaware:
University of Delaware Press.

Edwards, Bob, Marieke Van Willigen, Stephanie Lormand, Jayme Currie with
Kristina Bye, John Maiolo, and Ken Wilson. 2000. "An Analysis of the
Socioeconomic Impact of Huricane Floyd and Related Flooding on Students
at East Carolina University." (Quick Response Report #129). Boulder,
Colorado: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center,
University of Colorado.

Enarson, Elaine, Cheryl Childers, Betty Hearn Morrow, Deborah Thomas,
and Ben Wisner. 2003. *A Social Vulnerability Approach to Disasters*.
Emmitsburg, Maryland: Emergency Management Institute, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.

Faupel, Charles E. 1987. "Human Ecology: Contributions to Research and
Policy Formation." Pp. 181-211 in *Sociology of Disasters: Contributions
of Sociology to Disaster Research*, edited by Russell R. Dynes, Bruna
DeMarchi, and Carlo Pelanda. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.

Fischer, Henry W. III. 1998. *Response to Disaster: Fact Versus Fiction
and Its Perpetuation‑‑The Sociology of Disaster*. Second Edition.
Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2003. "The *Sociology of* Disaster: Definitions,
Research Questions, & Measurements. Continuation of the Discussion in a
Post-September 11 Environment." *International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters* 21 (No. 1):91-107.

Fitzpatrick, Colleen and Dennis S. Mileti. 1994. "Public Risk
Communication." Pp. 71‑84 in *Disasters, Collective Behavior, and Social
Organization,* edited by Russell R. Dynes and Kathleen J. Tierney.
Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press.

Fritz, Charles E. 1961. "Disasters." Pp. 651‑694 in *Contemporary Social
Problems,* edited by Robert K. Merton and Robert A. Nisbet. New York:
Harcourt.

Geis, D.E. 2000. "By Design: The Disaster Resistant and Quality of Life
Community." *Natural Hazards Review* 1 (No. 3):151-160.

Gruntfest, Eve and Marc Weber. 1998. "Internet and Emergency Management:
Prospects for the Future." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies
and Disasters* 16:55-72.

Homan, Jacqueline. 2003. "Writing Disaster: Autobiography as a
Methodology in Disasters Research." *International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters* 21 (No. 2:51-80.

Haas, J. Eugene and Thomas E. Drabek. 1970. "Community Disaster and
System Stress: A Sociological Perspective." Pp. 264-286 in *Social and
Psychological Factors in Stress*, edited by Joseph E. McGrath. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1973. *Complex Organizations: A Sociological
Perspective*. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Hewitt, Kenneth (ed.). 1983. *Interpretations of Calamity.* Boston:
Allen & Unwin Inc.

Jenkins, Philip. 2003. *Images of Terror: What We Can and Can't Know
about Terrorism*. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Killian, Lewis M. 1956. *An Introduction to Methodological Problems of
Field Studies in Disasters*. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of
Sciences/National Research Council.

Kreps, Gary A. 1984. "Sociological Inquiry and Disaster Research."
*Annual Review of Sociology* 10:309‑330.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1987. "Classical Themes, Structural Sociology, and
Disaster Research." Pp. 357-401 in *Sociology of Disasters: Contribution
of Sociology in Disaster Research*, edited by Russell R. Dynes, Brune
DeMarchi and Carlo Pelanda. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1995a. "Disaster as Systemic Event and Social Catalyst:
A Clarification of Subject Matter." *International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters* 13:255‑284.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1995b. "Excluded Perspectives in the Social Construction
of Disaster: A Response to Hewitt's Critique." *International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 13:349‑351.

Kreps, Gary A. and Susan Lovegren Bosworth with Jennifer A. Mooney,
Stephen T. Russell, and Kristen A. Myers. 1994. *Organizing, Role
Enactment, and Disaster: A Structural Theory.* Newark, Delaware:
University of Delaware Press.

Kreps, Gary A. and Thomas E. Drabek. 1996. "Disasters Are Non‑Routine
Social Problems." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters* 14:129-153.

Major, Ann Marie and L. Erwin Atwood. 2004. "Assessing the Usefulness of
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Terrorism Advisory System."
*International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 22 (No.
2):77-101.

McEntire, David A. 2004. "Tenets of Vulnerability: An Assessment of a
Fundamental Disaster Concept." *Journal of Emergency Management* 2 (No.
2):23-29.

McEntire, David A. and Dorothy Floyd. 2003. "Applying Sustainability to
the Study of Disasters: An Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses."
*Sustainable Communities Review* 6(Nos. 1&2): 14-21.

McEntire, David A., Christopher Fuller, Chad W. Johnson, and Richard
Weber. 2002. "A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a
Holistic Policy Guide." *Public Administration Review* 62 (No.
3):267-281.

Mendoça, David and William A. Wallace. 2004. "Studying
Organizationally-situated Improvisation in Response to Extreme Events."
*International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters*. 22 (No.
2):5-29.

Mileti, Dennis S. 1980. "Human Adjustment to the Risk of Environmental
Extremes." *Sociology and Social Research* 64:327‑347.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1987. "Sociological Methods and Disaster Research." Pp.
57-69 in *Sociology of Disasters: Contributions of Sociology to Disaster
Research*, edited by Russell R. Dynes, Bruna DeMarchi, and Carlo
Pelanda. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1999. *Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States*. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Mitchell, J.T. and G.S. Everly. 2000. "Critical Incident Stress
Management and Critical Incident Stress Debriefings: Evolutions,
Effects, and Outcomes." Pp. 71-90 in *Psychological Debriefing: Theory,
Practice, and Evidence*, edited by B. Raphael and J. Wilson. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Morrow, Betty Hearn and Walter Gillis Peacock. 1997. "Disasters and
Social Change: Hurricane Andrew and the Reshaping of Miami?" Pp. 226-242
in *Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and the Sociology of Disasters*
edited by Walter Gillis Peacock, Betty Hearn Morrow and Hugh Gladwin.
London: Routledge.

Murria, Juan. 2004. "A Disaster, by Any Other Name." *International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 23 (No. 1):5-34.

Nakagawa, Yuko and Rajib Shaw. 2004. "Social Capital: A Missing Link to
Disaster Recovery." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters*. 22 (No. 1):5-34.

Nash, Nichole. 2002. "The Use of Geographic Information Systems in
Disaster Research." Pp. 320-333 in *Methods of Disaster Research*,
edited by Robert A. Stallings. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Xlibris
Corporation.

National Institute of Mental Health. 2002. *Mental Health and Mass
Violence: Evidence-Based Early Psychological Intervention for
Victims/Survivors of Mass Violence*. *A Workshop to Reach Consensus on
Best Practices*. NIH Publication No. 02-5138. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office. (Accessed April, 2003 at:
[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/massviolence.pdf]{.underline}).

Neal, David M. 1984. "Blame Assignment in a Diffuse Disaster Situation:
A Case Example of the Role of an Emergent Citizen Group." *International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 2:251‑266.

Neal, David M. and Brenda D. Phillips. 1995. "Effective Emergency
Management: Reconsidering the Bureaucratic Approach." *Disasters: The
Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy and Management* 19:327‑337.

Oliver-Smith, Anthony and Susanna M. Hoffman (eds.). 1999. *The Angry
Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspective*. New York: Routledge.

Oyola-Yemaiel, Arthur and Jennifer Wilson. 2003, "Terrorism and System
Failure: A Revisited Perspective of Current Development Paradigms."
*International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 21 (No.
3):25-40.

Parker, Dennis J. (ed.). 2000. *Floods*. London: Routledge.

Parr, Arnold Richard. 1997-98. "Disasters and Human Rights of Persons
with Disabilities: A Case for an Ethical Disaster Mitigation Policy."
*The Australian Journal of Emergency Management* 12 (No. 4):2-4.

Peacock, Walter Gillis. 1997. "Cross-National and Comparative Disaster
Research." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters*
15:117-133.

Peacock, Walter Gillis, Charles D. Killian and Frederick L. Bates. 1987.
"The Effects of Disaster Damage and Housing Aid on Household Recovery
Following the 1976 Guatemalan Earthquake." *International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 5:63‑88.

Perry, Ronald W. 1987. "Disaster Preparedness and Response among
Minority Citizens." Pp. 135-151 in *Sociology of Disasters:
Contributions of Sociology to Disaster Research*, edited by Russell R.
Dynes, Bruna DeMarchi, and Carlo Pelanda. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.

Porfiriev, Boris. 1998a. *Disaster Policy and Emergency Management in
Russia*. Commack, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1998b. "Issues in the Definition and Delineation of
Disasters and Disaster Areas." Pp. 56-72 in *What Is a Disaster?:
Perspectives on the Question*. London and New York: Routledge.

Prince, Samuel Henry. 1920. "Catastrophe and Social Change, Based Upon a
Sociological Study of the Halifax Disaster." Ph.D. thesis. New York:
Columbia University Department of Political Science.

Quarantelli, E.L. 1960. "Images of Withdrawal Behavior in Disasters:
Some Basic Misconceptions." *Social Problems* 8:68‑79.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1984. *Organizational Behavior in Disasters and
Implications For Disaster Planning.* Emmitsburg, Maryland: National
Emergency Training Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1987. "Presidential Address: What Should We Study?
Questions About the Concepts of Disasters." *International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 5:7‑32.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. (ed.). 1998. *What Is a Disaster?: Perspectives on the
Question*. London and New York: Routledge.

Quarantelli, E.L. and Russell R. Dynes. 1972. "When Disaster Strikes (It
Isn't Much Like What You've Heard and Read About)." *Psychology Today*
5:66‑70.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1977. "Response to Social Crisis and Disaster." *Annual
Review of Sociology* 3:23‑49.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1996. "Emergent Behaviors and Groups in the Crisis Times
of Disasters." Pp. 47-68 in *Individuality and Social Control: Essays in
Honor of Tamotsu Shibutani*, edited by Kian M. Kwan. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1997. "Problematical Aspects of the
Information/Communication Revolution for Disaster Planning and Research:
Ten Non-Technical Issues and Questions." *Disaster Prevention and
Management* 5:94-106.

Quarantelli, E.L. and Carlo Pelanda (eds.). 1989. *Proceedings of the
Italy‑United States Seminar on Preparations for, Responses to and
Recovery from Major Community Disasters, held October 5‑10, 1986*.
Newark, Delaware: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

Rodrígiez. Havidán, Tricia Wachtendorf, and Carla Russell. 2004.
"Disaster Research in the Social Sciences: Lessons Learned, Challenges,
and Future Trajectories." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters* 22 (No. 2):117-136.

Rogers, Everett M. 1962. *Diffusion of Innovations*. New York: The Free
Press.

Rossi, Peter H., James. D. Wright, Sonia R. Wright and Eleanor
Weber‑Burdin. 1978. "Are There Long Term Effects of American Natural
Disasters?" *Mass Emergencies* 3:117‑132.

Sharkey, Brian. 2004. "Drinking Water System Safety and Security
Planning: Manatee County Utility Operations Department." *IAEM Bulletin*
21 (No. 9):7.

Siegel, Judith M., Linda B. Bourque and Kimberly I. Shoaf. 1999.
"Victimization after a Natural Disaster: Social Disorganization or
Community Cohesion?" *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters* 17:265-294.

Simpson, David M. and Gregory A. Howard. 2001. "Issues in the
Profession: The Evolving Role of the Emergency Manager." *The Journal of
the American Society of Professional Emergency Planners* 8:63-70.

Stallings, Robert A. 1978. "The Structural Patterns of Four Types of
Organizations in Disaster." Pp. 87-103 in *Disasters: Theory and
Research*, edited by E.L. Quarantelli. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Stallings, Robert A. 1987. "Organizational Change and the Sociology of
Disaster." Pp. 239-257 in *Sociology of Disasters: Contributions of
Sociology to Disaster Research*, edited by Russell R. Dynes, Bruna
DeMarchi, and Carlo Pelanda. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1994. "Collective Behavior Theory and the Study of Mass
Hysteria." Pp. 207-228 in *Disasters, Collective Behavior, and Social
Organization*, edited by Russell R. Dynes and Kathleen J. Tierney.
Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. 1995. *Promoting Risk: Constructing the Earthquake
Threat.* Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (ed.). 2002. *Methods of Disaster Research*.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Xlibris Corporation.

Stephenson, Robin and Peter S. Anderson. 1997. "Disasters and the
Information Technology Revolution." *Disasters: The Journal of Disaster
Studies, Policy and Management* 21:305-334.

Sylves, Richard T. 2004. "A Précis on Political Theory and Emergency
Management." *Journal of Emergency Management* 2 (No. 3):27-32.

Weick, Karl E. 1993. "The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The
Mann Gulch Disaster." *Administrative Science Quarterly* 38:629-652.

Weller, Jack M. 1972. "Innovations in Anticipation of Crisis:
Organizational Preparations for Natural Disasters and Civil
Disturbances." Dissertation. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.

Wenger, Dennis E. 1987. "Collective Behavior and Disaster Research." Pp.
213-237 in *Sociology of Disasters: Contributions of Sociology to
Disaster Research*, edited by Russell R. Dynes, Bruna DeMarchi, and
Carlo Pelanda. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.

Wenger, Dennis E., James D. Dykes, Thomas D. Sebok, and Joan L. Neff.
1975. "It's a Matter of Myths: An Empirical Examination of Individual
Insight Into Disaster Response." *Mass Emergencies* 1:33‑46.

Wenger, Dennis E., Thomas F. James and Charles F. Faupel. 1980.
*Disaster Beliefs and Emergency Planning.* Newark, Delaware: Disaster
Research Project, University of Delaware.

Willigen, Marieka Van. 2001. "Do Disasters Affect Individual's
Psychological Well-Being? An Over-Time Analysis of the Effect of
Hurricane Floyd on Men and Women in Eastern North Carolina."
*International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters* 19:59-83.

Wisner, Ben. 2001. "Capitalism and the Shifting Spatial and Social
Distribution of Hazard and Vulnerability." *Australian Journal of
Emergency Management* 16:44-50.

Wright, James D., Peter H. Rossi, Sonia R. Wright and Eleanor
Weber‑Burdin. 1979. *After the Clean‑Up: Long‑Range Effects of Natural
Disasters.* Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Yamamoto, Yasumasa and E. L. Quarantelli. 1982. *Inventory of the
Japanese Disaster Research Literature in the Social and Behavioral
Sciences.* Columbus, Ohio: Disaster Research Center, The Ohio State
University.