Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 30, Number 2, 2009, pp97-103

Acceptance in a Disaster Area: Process Technologies for Implementation Scientists

Tomohide ATSUMI**Center for the Study of Communication-Design, Osaka University, Japan(Received December 10, 2008 accepted June 21, 2009)
ABSTRACTThis study introduces the process technology for implementation scientists to enter adisaster field and provides two case studies by focusing on the technology. First, its
theoretical background is introduced. Second, it defines process technology as knowhow for implementation and practice, capacity building and social development forknowledge ownership. Third, it further elaborates on process technology for acceptancein a community. Then, it provides two cases of process technology use, one for the relief
stage and the other for the revitalization phase. Finally, future views of this technology are
discussed with emphasis placed on teaching methods for this technology.
Keyword: Process Technology, Implementation Science, Narrative-Design Science,
Action Research, Community

1. Introduction

conduct action research for the betterment of the field.
When they examine a disaster, they are supposed to
go deeply into the disaster area to meet the survivors
and start collaborative practices for the disaster relief,
recovery, revitalization, and preparedness phases.
Disaster opens a community in that many rescue
workers, medical doctors, nurses, officers, volunteers
and researchers from outside go there and try to help
the residents. Most of them are accustomed to dealing with survivors. However, while it is true thatsome make contact easily with survivors and begin
collaboration over time, others do not establish any
collaborative relationship with them at all. Of course,
the former do possess some skills to meet and talkwith the survivors. Kameda (2007) and his colleagues
agreed to call such a skill a process technology, thatis, know-how for implementation and practice, capacity building and social development for knowledge
ownership. This study introduces the technology for
implementation scientists to enter a disaster field, andprovides two case studies by focusing on the technol-

Obviously, survivors of disasters do not live
simply for the purpose of research. They are not theobjects of research, but possible partners. Therefore,
when investigators want to conduct their own studies,
they should reconsider the following questions before,
during, and after the investigation: What purpose
does this research serve? How does it contribute to
the survivors before the researchers? Such reflective consciousness may lead investigators to achieve
their aims with the survivors. To conduct studies withthese considerations in mind, however, it is essential
for disaster researchers to enter the disaster sites, andabove all to be accepted in the community.
Scientists working on the implementation offindings (i.e., implementation scientists), not onlywith a human scientific background, but also with anatural scientific one, pursue collaborative practices
with people (e.g., residents, practitioners, and researchers) in the disaster field. In other words, they97

T. ATSUMI

ogy.

the field. On balance, implementation researchers
are supposed to move back and forth between theirlibraries and the field(s). The process technology
introduced here, therefore, does not cover the wholeprocess of research, but is used to remove possible
obstacles when entering the disaster field.
The present study focuses on this technology.
First, its theoretical background is introduced. Second, a process technology is elaborated for acceptancein a community. Third, it provides two cases, one
for the relief stage and the other for the revitalization
phase. Finally, future views of this technology (e.g.,
the teaching methods for this technology) are discussed.

Previous studies on disaster have indicated theimportance of gaining access to disaster fields. A
recently published handbook on disaster research includes a chapter (Stallings, 2006) on methodologicalissues. It reviews many studies, classic and new, andexamines timing, access, and the generalizability ofmethods used in field studies, survey research, anddocumentary research. For instance, if researchers
enter a disaster site late, they are likely to lose contacts with key figures active immediately after thedisaster, which may lead to the loss of access to precious information especially from formal organizations. However, even when researchers enter a disaster site at the right time, it is still unclear whether andhow they become accepted in the field.
Some research implicitly exemplifies the importance of acceptance in the field. For instance,
Matsuda & Okada (2006) developed a new systematic
method of community diagnosis in a local community
in Nagoya, Japan. They reported that a local nonprofit organization had made close contacts with theresidents in the community for a couple of years before the survey. In other words, without the long-term
contacts between the community and the non-profit
organization, this research would not have produced
any reliable findings, or even survey questionnaires
could not have been distributed in that community.
As another example, researchers participated in acommunity for many years in order to examine its
revitalization from a disaster (e.g., Kimura & Takahashi, 2004). It was undoubtedly important for them
to be accepted in the community. Otherwise, theywould not have reported any suggestive findings for
future revitalizations. However, again, it is not clearly described how they were accepted or what actions
they took to be accepted.
Of course, it is insufficient for any researchers
just to enter a disaster field and describe it, but instead
the primary role of researchers is to produce theoretical discourses for the survivors because, as Lewin(1952) stated, there is nothing more practical thana good theory. Some researchers may stay in theirlaboratories or offices to elaborate their theoreticalconsiderations. Others may defiantly stay in the field
because they naively believe that theory can be foundfrom data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). However, as
Parker (2004) suggested, theories do not emerge from

2. Theoretical Background
Science is a part of our world of discourse,
though it is exceptionally strong nowadays (Atsumi,2008). In fact, besides scientific discourses, there arereligious discourses, artistic performances, and soforth. It is hence ideal for us to take the whole discursive elements into account to support disaster survivors. However, realistically, scientists are supposed
to approach the survivors from scientific perspectives.
Atsumi (2007) categorized sciences into four
categories (Table 1), allowing for the risk that any
classification could invite false dichotomies and excessively polarized thinking. First, sciences are divided into nomothetic and narrative science. Nomothetic
science includes natural sciences such as seismology.
It attempts to determine the universal laws by testing
hypotheses using the criterion of true or false. Narrative science, in contrast, contains social sciences suchas sociology. It focuses on various discourses using
the criterion of verisimilar or non-verisimilar.
Table 1. Categorization of Science
Epistemic Science

Design Science

Nomothetic Science

Seismology

Engineering

Narrative Science

Sociology

Group Dynamics

Another criterion is to divide sciences into
epistemic and design sciences. Epistemic science isinterested in the question, “What is it?” It first describes research objects as they are, explains them,
controls them and predicts them. Once it is revealed98ACCEPTANCE IN A DISASTER AREA

what a particular phenomenon is, the epistemic scientists stop their investigation. Design science, on theother hand, focuses on the question, “What do you
want to do?” It attempts to formulate a future planby considering how it can be and how it should be.
In other words, it designs a reality, practices it, andevaluates it.
The first cell of Table 1, nomothetic-epistemicscience, corresponds to the so-called hard natural sciences. It is interested in finding universal wisdom for
global contexts because it is nomothetic. It is, therefore, based on logical empiricism in a broad sense. It
typically compares control groups versus experimental groups, and target samples versus basic samples.
These comparisons are made for universal understanding. Even if they focus on indigenous findings,
they ultimately try to use them to understand disasterin general. It is of course interested in understanding
a phenomenon, but the implementation of the finding
does not receive primary focus because it is epistemic. It focuses, therefore, on how we can understandthe reality, but does not pay much attention to how we
can change it.
The second cell, narrative-epistemic science,corresponds to the humanities and most social sciences such as sociology. It is interested in indigenous
wisdom and how people make sense of the reality
through their interactions because it is a narrative science. It is, therefore, based on social constructionism
in a broad sense. Even when it deals with universal
patterns of conversation, for instance, it ultimately
tries to utilize them to interpret the meanings in a particular context. It stops here, however, because it isepistemic. In other words, the implementation of thefinding does not receive primary attention.
The third cell of Table 1, nomothetic-design science, corresponds typically to engineering. It takes
into account the universal law, e.g., physical law,because it is nomothetic. It is, therefore, based on
logical empiricism in a broad sense. At the sametime, however, it is also interested in implementing
research findings in the real world because it is a design science. Therefore, it tries not only to understandthe reality through the eyes of natural scientists, butalso to change it.
Finally, the fourth cell, narrative-design science,corresponds to group dynamics (Atsumi, 2007). It
is interested in indigenous wisdom, but for the local

context per se. It is interested in how people makesense of the world through their interactions in the“here-and-now” because it is a narrative science withsocial constructionism in a broad sense. It focuseson dialogical features of everyday life in a particular
context. It should be noted that it is also interested
in implementing research findings in the real, thatis, constructed, world because it is a design science.
Therefore, it tries not only to understand the constructed reality, but also to change it.
Disaster research can be conducted in any cellof Table 1. However, when researchers attempt tocontribute to the betterment of survivors’ worlds
where changes are expected, they are likely to conduct design scientific studies. In fact, that is why
some engineers and researchers specialized in groupdynamics have collaborated in action research fordisaster survivors. However, it is now clear how different they are from each other. Engineers appreciatecontext-free findings and tend to be in favor of economy of explanation, so that if they submit a data set
from a different context, it enthusiastically revises (orkeeps) its old findings. In other words, findings froma replication of an old research, for instance, may atbest replace the old versions. Researchers of groupdynamics, on the other hand, actually participate inlocal practices and attempt to illustrate and vivify thetheory. A new ethnography does not replace an oldone, but hopefully amplifies it. They occasionallychange the reality collaboratively with their research
partners in the field. Their activities resemble thoseof social workers, but they are interested not only inpractice itself, but also in theoretical approaches toward changing the reality.
In sum, design sciences, either nomothetic or
narrative, are interested in the betterment of disastersurvivors’ situation. Although engineering and groupdynamics differ deeply from each other in their basic
assumption of the world (i.e., nomothetic with logicalempiricism versus narrative with social constructionism), they both need to work in actual disaster fields.
Process technology, therefore, is useful for both design type scientists.
3. Process Technology for Acceptance in a Community
Process technology originally drew attention
through a project called Disaster Reduction Hyper99

T. ATSUMIbase (2006). Kameda (2007) and his international
colleagues examined world-wide disaster researchand practices not only from academic but also frompractical perspectives, and widened the definition oftechnology: Technology is a set of rational means andknowledge pertinent to realizing specific objectives
that have solid logical bases and stability. Then, they
identified the implementation technology consistingof the following three core elements. First, implementation oriented technology is defined as products
from modern research and development that are practiced under clear implementation strategies. Second,transferable indigenous knowledge is defined as the
traditional art of disaster reduction that is indigenous
to specific region(s) but having the potential to be
applied to other regions and having time-tested reliability. Finally, process technology is defined as
know-how for implementation and practice, capacity
building and social development for knowledge ownership.
The project set the general criteria for all technologies and the particular criteria for each technology. The technologies, in general, should beunderstandable to users, implementable (i.e., usable,
doable), and shown to be useful. Criteria for process
technology are: (1) Placing emphasis on “practical use” of research, (2) A tested methodology withsocial, cultural, economic, ecological, and technicalfeasibilities, developed through an implementation/
testing process ensuring results in disaster reduction,(3) Demonstrated stakeholders’ participation andenhanced ownership of the process of results and lessons, (4) Amenable/adaptable to the local context, andwith institutionalization potential, and (5) In-depth
knowledge and insight gained through experience
with disasters and mitigation.
When considering a community for disaster researchers to enter, first of all, they must realize that itis the “territory” of people who have lived there andthe care of the residents (i.e., survivors) is the firstpriority. When they visit the area immediately after adisaster, they should respect, for instance, local rescue
people. Concretely, by thanking them for allowing
the researchers to participate in rescue and relief, they
themselves should participate in and practice rescue
and relief even though their academic background is
not related to rescue or relief work.
To maintain the relationship with local people,

investigators are supposed to visit the community
frequently. However, they should not stick to conducting research. Of course, their purpose is to study
particular issues, but this is a result of frequent visits.
That is, they do not visit the area for research, but
eventually return from the area with research results.
They are recommended to meet community representatives and clarify their intention for the research, butshould not start this immediately. They are supposed
to communicate personally with local people, for instance, even by way of drinking with them socially.
When they reach the recovery stage, in addition
to the issues above, researchers should be more sensitive to community people’s feelings than before because at that stage they have familiarized themselveswith the community. In other words, they should befree from preoccupation or stereotypic opinions. Instead of talking to the residents, they should listen tothem as they rest, for instance, at a designated smoking area. Of course, they should talk to the residents,
but not direct them. It is usually recommended toobserve human relationships among key persons andengage themselves in both formal and backroom
meetings. When researchers wish to share their theories, they should do so at an appropriate timing.
If the research process takes much time, forinstance, to reach its revitalization phase, researchers should stay in the field or find a substitute (e.g.,a graduate student) for monitoring if forced to leave
for a while. Because the residents at that stage canbetter understand who the researchers are, researchers can and should play their own roles depending on
the situation: Be a scientist to the local people but notalways. It is good to try and find a time and place totalk about the research concerns.
Obviously, these process technologies are very
abstract. Therefore, it is worthwhile examining acouple of concrete examples.
4. Case Study 1: Footbath for Survivors as a
Process Technology
The process technology introduced here is an example of the first contact of people from outside of acommunity with its residents. A large earthquake hit
the Noto Peninsula, Ishikawa prefecture on March 25,
2007. Local coastal villages were severely damaged
and residents were evacuated from there by boat. As
100

ACCEPTANCE IN A DISASTER AREA

it was still early spring, it was especially difficult for
elderly people to stay on the cold floors of shelters.
University students from Niigata and Kobe formed
the Chuetsu-Kobe Footbath Team for the evacuees inNoto and visited shelters to provide footbaths.
Footbaths have been provided at shelters after
major disasters since the 1995 Kobe earthquake. It
became a major activity of student volunteers from
Osaka University not only at shelters, but also at
temporary houses after the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake.
Students from Kobe and Niigata learned its techniqueand, more importantly, the spirit and meaning of footbaths from those from Osaka University.
Footbaths relax people physically by placing
their feet in warm water for 15 to 20 minutes; however, this is just a small part of their significance. It isalso a tool for establishing communication between
survivors and volunteers. While taking footbaths,
survivors and volunteers talk with each other. A volunteer may ask an elderly person how he or she was
evacuated from the village while providing a footbath,whereas the elderly survivor may talk about his or her
grandchildren to the volunteer. Without the footbath,it would be very difficult for student volunteers tostart such communication because they are from theoutside. It would also be very rare for local residents
to have such conversation with strangers. However,
especially after major life events such as disasters,
people like to have someone to listen to their stories.
Once they have an opportunity to talk and to be listened to, they are likely to feel more comfortable andrelaxed. Of course, if volunteers detect any serious
problems (e.g., mental health issues) through talking
during the footbath, they then report the problems tolocal leaders. If volunteers do not detect any serious
problems, conversation records are shared among volunteers and used for future relief activities.
It is true that footbaths are inefficient in the sensethat they must be given one at a time and a volunteer
would provide them for only a few survivors per hour.
However, volunteers have direct contact with survivors. They jointly spend time together and talk andlisten to each other. This is the direct contact or physical touch that volunteers experienced in Kobe during
the First Year of Disaster Volunteers, i.e., 1995. The
direct contact is likely to lead volunteers to the statusof contingency, under which they can adopt the reality as one alternative that would otherwise not havebeen chosen. In other words, by touching survivors
directly, volunteers may feel not only that they are
now helping, but also that they are helped. Such modeof thinking can restrain one-way support from volunteers to survivors, and promote mutual human interaction between them. Therefore, footbaths are a strong
new tool of process technology for disaster relief by
volunteers.
5. Case Study 2: Staying in a Village for
Revitalization with Process Technologies
Although the footbath is administered for sometime (e.g., Suwa, Atsumi, & Seki, 2007), it is best
suited to the first stage of contact with survivors.
Here is another example of process technology that
includes longitudinal relationships with local residents. On the 23rd of October, 2004, a devastating
series of earthquakes hit the mountainous area of
Niigata prefecture. This major earthquake, called the
Chuetsu Earthquake, affected small depopulated, ruralvillages in the mountainous area that is covered withdeep snow in winter. Not only their lives and agricultural fields, but also their traditional regional cultures
were seriously damaged.
Shiodani is one such village in Ojiya city. It held
49 households before the earthquake, but 29 of themhad to leave the village after the earthquake which
killed three children in the village and crushed mostof the houses. In the summer of 2007, 20 families
finally returned to the village after living in temporary
houses in the city area. They are currently rebuilding their village lives with some volunteers including
the author and his students. For instance, a series ofworkshops have been conducted since January 2008
to discuss issues for revitalization of the village, andrice fields were cultivated with volunteers. Their traditional local network with neighborhood villages has
also been expanded by the holding of a joint summer
traditional dancing event.
What types of process technologies are required
to collaborate with these local residents for an extended period of time? The most important technique
is to work together with local residents on a daily
basis. When researchers enter the community for the
first time, it is obviously required to introduce themselves to the contact person in the village. Then, it isgood to ask the local leader to introduce them to other101

T. ATSUMI

residents. Because outside researchers are taught by
the residents, they are supposed to be modest, and be
open-minded to sharing both practical and academic
aspirations and enthusiasm. When they find key persons in the area and develop a base for the activities,
they should stay active in participating in the community’s events (e.g., rice planting).
If researchers stay attentive to local residents,
they usually find that the community is not indivisibly united. In other words, it is natural that thecommunity is divided into sub-groups, according toattitudes toward various issues. Sometimes, there aresome conflicts among them. Of course, it is simply
impossible or inappropriate for the researchers to be
indifferent to the conflicts because the more deeply
they are involved in the community, the more often
they are requested to express their own opinions. Researchers are advised not to stay neutral, but to face
the residents with sincerity as individuals with theirown opinions, ideas, and attitudes. Of course, they
can be critical, but it should be productively critical.
As Section 2 of this article shows, researchers
here are design scientists who would like to change
the (constructed) reality through collaborative practice, so that they are supposed to have their own
values and preferences either based on their scientific knowledge or even on their own personal lives.
To prepare, it is recommended that implementation
scientists should talk and share common aspirations
with local residents, study the areas thoroughly before
and during the visit (e.g., visit the local library frequently), learn the local dialect and daily life patterns.
It is always advised that investigators explain their
theory and research in plain language (Atsumi, 2006).
It takes time, but they should not be discouraged by alate progress.

this technology here before, during, and after theirresearch and practice. Remember, however, that theoperation of these skills depends on the specific context of the particular disaster, and on the personalityof the researcher. It changes, therefore, from case tocase, and “Different strokes for different folks.”
It is suggested that, at this point of time, once
readers have studied these skills from this article witha couple of examples, they are strongly recommended
to enter the actual field. In the field, try to be creative
and to improvise the skills they have studied here. Ifthey are still at the learning stage (e.g., graduate students), they need to be trained in the field. Namely, it
is best for them to follow an experienced researcher
and ask him or her to take them to his/her own field.
This on-the-job-training (OJT), or in-the-field-training(IFT) should be effective. However,, in future, further
investigation is required on the methods for teaching
this technology not only in the actual field, but also inthe classroom in advance of an actual disaster.
References
Atsumi, T. (2006). Tri-layer structure of presentations ofcollaborative practice: Cases from communicationdesign for disaster mitigation project. CommunicationDesign, 171-189 (in Japanese).
Atsumi, T. (2007). Aviation with Fraternal Twin Wings over
the Asian Context: Using nomothetic epistemic andnarrative design paradigms in social psychology. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 32-40.
Atsumi, T. (2008). Background and some examples of communication-design for disaster mitigation. Japanese
Journal of Risk Analysis, 18(1), 45-51. (in Japanese).
Disaster Reduction Hyperbase (2006) accessible at http://
drh.edm.bosai.go.jp/
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.

6. Future perspectives

New York: Aldine.
Kameda, H. (2007). Definition and criteria on IOT, PT, TIK,

Obviously the process technologies listed in thesections above are limited to the particular locality.
In fact, those technologies are based on the actual
experiences of a series of long-term fieldwork by theauthor who is both a researcher and an NPO staff
member. These are based on his own personal experiences.
The list of process technologies can be infinite.
Readers are supposed to examine the items listed inand criteria for DRH contents acceptance. EDM-NIED
accessible at. http://drh.edm.bosai.go.jp/common/documents/DRH_Criteria.pdf
Kimura, T., & Takahashi, K. (2004). A study on the reconstruction process of dwellings after a volcanic disaster– a case study in Kamikoba district, Shimabara City.
Journal of Japanese Society for Natural Disaster Sci-

102

ACCEPTANCE IN A DISASTER AREA

http://www.istr.org/conferences/bangkok/WPVolume/Suwa.

ence, 23(2), 229-244.

Koichi.pdf).

Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social science: Selected
theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. London: Tavistock.
Matsuda, Y., & Okada, N. (2006). Community diagnosis

Author’s Note

for sustainable disaster preparedness. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 28(1), 25-33.

The essence of Case Study 1 and related concepts areregistered in the Disaster Reduction Hyperbase under
the title of “Social Skills required of researchers toensure their acceptability in a disaster area”, which isaccessible at
http://drh.edm.bosai.go.jp/database/item/20ec1196
f6c906a5b0669959a351002f928a844f. Case Study
2 was partially supported by a special research grantfrom the president of the Japan Society for Natural
Disaster Science, 2006-2008.

Parker, I. (2004). Qualitative psychology. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Stallings, R.A. (2006). Methodological Issues. H. Rodriguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (eds.) Handbook of Disaster Research, New York: Springer, 55-82.
Suwa, K., Atsumi, T., & Seki, Y. (2007). Disaster volunteers
and two types of interest. Selected Papers by the International Society of Third Sector Research (On-line
publication accessible at103