DOI: 10.17603/ds2-xjyf-nc93
title: A Protocol for Linking Survivor Stories to Forensic Engineering Studies of Tornadoes, in A Protocol for Talking with Survivors of Tornadoes

description: The unique profile of tornado risks and vulnerabilities in the Southeast U.S. results in a disproportionate number of injuries and fatalities, with the vast majority (nearly 70%) occurring in permanent or mobile and manufactured homes. That such a significant number of injuries and fatalities in tornadoes occur in locations of shelter demonstrates the critical importance of debris impacts, sheltering decisions, and sheltering options. 

Past studies have addressed a number of risk factors related to this vulnerability within the respective disciplines of social science and engineering separately. Our study created a new, unified approach whereby the strengths of social science and forensic engineering approaches were combined to holistically assess key risk factors at a scale and depth that had only once before been attempted (NIST's study of the 2011 Joplin, MO, tornado). Specifically, we solicited survivor stories and, in a separate effort, linked their accounts to detailed forensic engineering assessments of the structures impacted by tornado events. The survivor protocol elicited first-hand accounts of the timing and sequence of the tornado hazard, environmental and broadcast warning cues, and behavioral and structural responses. In many of our interviews, we took the opportunity to explore several high priority pre- and post-event risk factors, including the role of child occupants in personal protection behavior and structural mitigation decisions, and the long-term impacts of these decisions on well-being.

We developed the interview protocol over seven post-tornado deployments with nearly 100 tornado survivors and protocols used in the field. The protocol was designed to capture: 1) information received or sought prior to the storm, 2) the survivor’s experience from just prior to during the storm, 3) influences on any sheltering decision-making, 4) efficacy of best available sheltering, and 5) social support and personal coping strategies. 
description: Our study created a new, unified approach whereby the strengths of social science and forensic engineering approaches were combined to holistically capture key experiences and risk factors of tornadoes at a scale and depth that has rarely been attempted. Specifically, we solicited survivor stories and, in a collaborative effort with structural and wind engineers, linked survivor’s accounts to detailed forensic engineering assessments of the structures impacted by a tornado. The survivor protocol elicited first-hand accounts of the timing and sequence of the tornado hazard, environmental and broadcast warning cues, and behavioral and structural responses. In many of our interviews, we took the opportunity to explore several high priority pre- and post-event risk factors, including the role of dependents in personal protection behavior and structural mitigation decisions, and the long-term impacts of these decisions on well-being. 

We developed the interview protocol with seven post-tornado deployments from 2019 to 2022, speaking to nearly 100 tornado survivors. The protocol was designed to capture: 1) information received or sought prior to the storm, 2) the survivor’s experience from just prior to during the storm, 3) influences on any sheltering decision-making, 4) efficacy of best available sheltering, and 5) social support and personal coping strategies.

The final interview protocol is a result of analysis on the efficacy of the protocols used in the field. Interviews were as short as 8 minutes long, with a few lasting around 90 minutes. The average was around 20 minutes. Interviews were usually conducted at the damaged or destroyed homesite where the interviewee was during the tornado. As such, many interview situations were chaotic, with interruptions from noise and volunteers or other people doing post-disaster work. 

The research team was able to change or revise questions from analysis of the questions used to improve the usefulness of the protocol. We first included all questions provided on every original protocol used in the field, then revised the wording according to the Institutional Review or Ethics Board (IRB) proposal. This allowed for a cohesive and complete revised protocol. Furthermore, when developing the revised protocol, the research team used the original protocols on completed interviews to identify areas for improvement and strengths of the protocol. This analysis exercise inspired the addition of the S (statement) and Q (question) notations before each word or phrase on the final, revised protocol shared here. S and Q allow the interviewer to note when the interviewee had made a statement (S) about a topic separate from a direct question (i.e. when telling a story about events or answering a different question), or when the interviewer had asked a direct question about a topic (mark the Q). Although this change was made after fieldwork was complete, we believe it will be very beneficial in the field to help remind the interviewer to ask follow-ups for relevant information or garner additional information. 

The revised protocol can be used in social-science and engineering field-work study. The protocol is shared in two forms: Page one has the short form protocol, which is ideal for field interviews, while the second page has full sentences and is thus suitable for submission to an IRB overseeing the work. In the short-form protocol, there is enough information given that an interviewer can quickly recall the question and keep track of what has been asked. The short-form protocol allows for the interviewer to maintain presence with the interviewee by only requiring short glances and marks to document progress. Additionally, there is space to document statements by the interviewee if pertinent information is divulged, and/or to keep track of key points. After interviewing multiple people, having clarification within the margins of the short-form protocol is beneficial to the interviewer to recall important details. The long-form protocol should be studied ahead of time so an interviewer knows what they are asking about and how to phrase questions. Further, if a study intends to revise the protocol, it’s advised to edit the long-form version first and then edit the short-form version.