SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3216943535> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±189 with 100 items per page.

W3216943535 endingPage "392" @default.
W3216943535 startingPage "374" @default.
W3216943535 abstract "The field of crisis and disaster studies has proliferated over the past two decades. Attention is bound to grow further as the world negotiates the prolonged challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this review, we provide an overview of the main foci, methods, and research designs employed in the crisis and disaster research fields in the period of 2001–2020. The review documents that the focus and methods used have not changed much over time. Single case studies and exploratory research prevail, the focus has shifted from preparedness to response, and methodological diversity is limited, but gradually increasing. Future challenges are to understand transboundary crisis management and creeping crises. Advancing the field calls for our community to put more effort in drawing lessons beyond the single case to uncover comparable and universal patterns that connect between events or phases, which help to theorize the multifaceted nature of crisis and disaster management. 过去20年里，危机与灾害研究领域不断扩大。鉴于世界应对2019冠状病毒病（Covid-19）大流行所带来的持续挑战，该领域所获得的关注势必会进一步增加。本篇综述中，我们概述了2001-2020年间危机与灾害研究领域的主要焦点、所使用的方法和研究设计。在此期间，该领域在9/11事件（2001）、飓风卡特里娜（2005）和东日本大地震（2011）等关键事件发生后为新的研究者打开了大量机遇。我们聚焦于四本关键期刊：《灾害》（Disasters）、《国际群体性突发事件与灾害杂志》、《突发事件与危机管理杂志》、《公共政策中的风险、灾害与危机》。本篇危机与灾害研究综述记录了单一案例研究的主导性，同时比较案例研究的数量也在增加。我们对灾害的了解基本基于探索性研究，同时危机文献表明，过去十年（2011-2020）里解释性研究的数量稳步增加。概念性研究的数量在这两类文献中保持相对稳定。尽管概念性文章在所发表文章中的占比并不高，但却是该领域中引用最多的文章类型之一。危机研究中方法的多样性正在增加。我们目睹了通过访谈和观察（辅以调查和统计学）进行收集和使用第一手资料的趋势上升。在灾害研究中，对访谈和观察的持续强调表明了实地研究在灾后的重要性。这些年来，调查研究保持相对稳定的趋势，占灾害方法论的三分之一。不过，与危机研究相比，明显缺乏实验研究或建模研究。在这两个领域中，方法论文章的数量目前仍然有限。灾害研究中，关注已从灾害准备转向了灾害响应。近期，我们发现灾后恢复和复原力再次引起关注。在危机和灾害管理研究中，灾害缓解这一阶段几乎未受到关注。很少有研究明确聚焦于危机或灾害的具体阶段转变。我们对不同阶段之间的相似点和不同点的了解似乎变得更少。整体而言，我们发现危机和灾害研究领域拓宽了，相邻研究领域对其作出了越来越多的贡献。不过，所使用的主题、设计和方法却并未随时间推移而发生太大变化。原本能激励解释性理论发展的比较研究一直发展缓慢。鉴于危机和灾害因一系列因素而发生快速变化，这些因素包括：新技术、气候变化和从不同方式影响行动者和社区的地缘政治动态，我们认为比较研究在未来是有希望的。我们发现，两个明显的挑战将很有可能影响未来研究：理解“跨边界”危机管理的起源和结果；理解逐渐形成的、藏匿于大众视野并侵蚀关键基础设施和制度的“慢性危机”（creeping crises）。公共权威机构并未完全准备好应对这些类型的危机。未来研究因此应越来越多地采纳过程方法，并更多地聚焦于起因和形成阶段，以及各阶段之间的转变。至于《公共政策中的风险、灾害与危机》的未来方向，我们呼吁研究聚焦于关于潜在的风险、危机和灾害管理过程的理论解释。危机和灾害研究也特别需要方法论文章。对重大事件提供新见解的探索性研究将仍然具有相关性，但对该领域的提升尤其需要我们将更多的努力聚焦于汲取不限于单一案例的经验，以期发现可比较的普遍模式，这种模式能帮助对危机和灾害管理的多面性质加以理论化。 El campo de los estudios de crisis y desastres ha proliferado durante las últimas dos décadas. La atención por nuestro campo está destinada a crecer aún más a medida que el mundo negocia los prolongados desafíos de la pandemia de Covid-19. En esta revisión, proporcionamos una descripción general de los principales enfoques, métodos y diseños de investigación empleados en los campos de investigación de crisis y desastres en el período 2001-2020. En este período, el campo se abrió considerablemente a nuevos investigadores después de eventos clave como el 11 de septiembre (2001), el huracán Katrina (2005) y el gran terremoto del este de Japón (2011). Nos centramosencuatrorevistas clave: ‘Disasters’, ‘International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters‘, ‘Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management’ y ‘Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy’. Esta revisión de los estudios de crisis y desastres documenta el predominio de los estudios de casos únicos, mientras que el número de estudios de casos comparativos está aumentando. Nuestro conocimiento sobre los desastres se basa principalmente en estudios exploratorios, mientras que la literatura sobre crisis muestra un aumento constante de los estudios explicativos en la última década (2011-2020). El número de estudios conceptuales se mantiene relativamente estable en ambas literaturas a lo largo de los años. Si bien los artículos conceptuales no constituyen una gran proporción de las publicaciones, se encuentran entre los artículos más citados en el campo. La diversidad de métodos en la investigación de crisis está aumentando. Somos testigos del aumento de la recopilación y el uso de datos primarios a través de entrevistas y observaciones, complementadas con encuestas y estadísticas. En los estudios de desastres, el énfasis continuo en las entrevistas y observaciones indica la importancia de la investigación de campo después de los desastres. La investigación de encuestas se mantiene relativamente estable a lo largo de los años, y representa alrededor de un tercio de las metodologías de desastres. Sin embargo, en comparación con la investigación de crisis, hay una clara ausencia de estudios experimentales o de modelos. En ambos campos, el número de artículos metodológicos sigue siendo limitado hasta el momento. En la investigación de crisis, la atención se ha desplazado de la preparación a la respuesta. Recientemente hemos visto una atención renovada por la recuperación y la resiliencia. Tanto en los estudios de gestión de crisis como de desastres, la fase de mitigación recibe poca atención. Pocos estudios parecen centrarse explícitamente en las transiciones a través de fases específicas de una crisis o desastre. Parece que hemos obtenido aún menos conocimientos sobre las similitudes y diferencias entre las fases. En general, vemos que el campo de la investigación de crisis y desastres se ha ampliado, con un número creciente de contribuciones de campos de estudio adyacentes. Pero los temas, diseños y métodos utilizados no han cambiado mucho con el tiempo. El enfoque comparativo que podría haber estimulado el desarrollo de teorías explicativas se ha quedado atrás. Con el mundo de las crisis y los desastres cambiando rápidamente, debido a las nuevas tecnologías, el cambio climático y las dinámicas geopolíticas que afectan a los actores y las comunidades de diversas maneras, creemos que la investigación comparativa es una promesa para el futuro. Vemos dos desafíos claros que probablemente informarán la investigación futura: comprender los orígenes y las consecuencias de la gestión de crisis transfronterizas y comprender las crisis progresivas que se incuban gradualmente, se esconden a plena vista y exponen la erosión de la infraestructura y las instituciones clave. Las autoridades públicas no están lo suficientemente preparadas para hacer frente a este tipo de crisis. Por lo tanto, los esfuerzos de investigación futuros deberían adoptar cada vez más un enfoque procesual y centrarse más en las causas y la incubación, y las transiciones entre fases. Para la dirección futura deRisk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, solicitamos una investigación que ofrezca explicaciones teóricas de los procesos subyacentes de gestión de riesgos, crisis y desastres. También existe una gran necesidad de artículos metodológicos en la investigación de crisis y desastres. Los ricos relatos exploratorios de eventos icónicos que ofrecen nuevos conocimientos seguirán siendo relevantes, pero avanzar en el campo requiere especialmente que nuestra comunidad se esfuerce más en extraer lecciones más allá del caso único para descubrir patrones comparables y universales que ayuden a teorizar la naturaleza multifacética de la crisis y gestión de desastres. “Crises provide a unique laboratory of social and political life (…) [and] perfect ground for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary efforts” (Rosenthal & Kouzmin, 1993: 3, 8). In 1993, Alexander Kouzmin and Uriel Rosenthal launched the Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. The launch of the journal marked an inflection point in the field of crisis management research. Long relegated to hidden niches in the fields of public administration, social psychology, and political science, the editors of this new journal conceptualized crisis as an interdisciplinary area of study in need of serious and sustained attention. Crises, the new editors intoned, “do not lend themselves to an easy science” (Rosenthal & Kouzmin, 1993, p. 10). And so it has proven. Many crises and disasters followed the launch of the new journal, but it was the shock of 9/11 that underlined and sustained the relevance of this emerging field. Mainstream scholars discovered the field of crisis management seemingly overnight. A series of subsequent crises, disasters, and threats—Hurricane Katrina, the Indian Ocean tsunami, the financial crisis, various immigration crises, terrorist attacks, cyber security breaches, and climate change—have since solidified the relevance of the field and propelled its development. The initiation of the journal Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy (RHCCP) in 2010, was a logical next step in the development of the field. In this article, we provide an overview of the main foci, methods, and research designs employed in the crisis and disaster research fields for our RHCPP readership. Over the past two decades, the field of crisis and disaster studies has proliferated. Its perhaps somewhat narrow focus on iconic accidents and disasters has widened to include the entire scope of crisis and disaster management, from preparedness to mitigation, response, and recovery. New subject matters have been taken up, such as disaster risk reduction, institutional and creeping crises, network governance, crisis communication, crisis informatics, and community resilience (Kuipers et al., 2019). More specifically, we see two clear trends. First, we see a steady increase in the number of publications in key crisis and disaster management journals, with the average number of publications in some journals doubling in the last 5 years. Second, the number of academic articles with “crisis” or “disaster” in the title tripled in the main generic public administration journals over the past two decades, as compared to the two preceding decades.1 The attention for our field is bound to grow further as the world negotiates the prolonged strains and challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. The call for scientific insights into the effectiveness and legitimacy of crisis management strategies is loud. Academics are massively responding (rarely have we seen so many special issues and articles on one crisis). While the attention for crises and disasters seems larger than ever, we note some challenges that deserve attention. Not surprising for a young field with many new contributors, we observe a sustained lack of consensus around the definition of crisis and disaster. Some claim that the absence of an agreed-up definition undermines the foundations our field (Kouzmin, 2008; Quarantelli, 1998, 2005; Roux-Dufort & Lalonde, 2013). We are not too worried, as definitions and key concepts vary across disciplines, even when studying seemingly similar phenomena (Shaluf & Said, 2003). We simply note that the terms crisis and disaster are often used interchangeably. They can refer to different types of events, which trigger different kinds of questions that require different research designs (Boin & ‘t Hart, 2007). The diversity of conceptualizations across these related debates illustrates that we are dealing with diverging phenomena that have multiple manifestations (Roux-Dufort & Lalonde, 2013). A good starting point for finding common ground is to speak of a crisis when a community of people, an organization, town, or nation, perceives a serious threat to the basic structures or fundamental values and norms of their social system, which, under conditions of time pressure and uncertainty, demands critical decision-making (Rosenthal et al., 2001). This definition situates the inflection point of a crisis in a social system, but the crisis itself can both materialize through the perception of a threat as well as a critical event. The focus on a social system compares reasonably well with definitions of disaster (Quarantelli, 2005), which differ in the sense that the event is typically related to a hazard agent that forms the source of damage (i.e., hurricane, flood, earthquake, or tsunami). In the tradition of disaster sociology, the event is generally defined as an inherently social phenomenon that emerges when a hazard agent impacts a social system with its own stratification and norms, which, in turn, defines its vulnerability (Perry, 2007; Quarantelli, 2005). Looking beyond the much-discussed issue of concept clarity, a number of other issues might have a deeper influence on the validity and reliability of research findings. Our first concern emerges from the focus on specific disasters and crises. In the past 20 years, the focus has been on iconic disasters and crises such as 9/11, the Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake (Fukushima), the Deep-Water Horizon oil spill, the Icelandic volcano ash cloud, and, recently, the global Covid-19 pandemic. Many journal issues hop from one critical event to another. Consequently, the single case study approach still seems the favored method of research (George & Bennett, 2005). Such an event-based focus could limit our understanding of underlying processes and patterns between crises (Hällgren et al., 2018). Efforts to build major crisis case banks by the Swedish Centre for Crisis Management Research and Training (Crismart) at the Swedish National Defence University and the Moynihan Institute's Transboundary Crisis Management working group at Syracuse University, have resulted in many single case publications, and a number of comparative crisis research dissertations (Brändström, 2016; Deverell, 2010; Hansen, 2007; Nohrstedt, 2007; Svedin, 2008). Perhaps due to the considerable variation between the cases in terms of both content and depth, we see limited large N studies comparing observations from multiple crises across the Atlantic (for a notable exception, see Hermann & Dayton, 2009). This warrants the question whether we have made progress in accumulating knowledge, moving from single case studies to comparative case studies, and consequently from exploratory to explanatory studies. Our second concern pertains to the methodologies employed to study crises and disasters. Disasters and crises are often studied in similar ways, with researchers engaging in on-site fieldwork through interviews and observations, or conducting retrospective analyses based on documentation. Already in 1994, Quarantelli (p. 2) expressed the methodological concern that “present day studies are not that much different from those undertaken these last 45 years. As has been said generally, major scientific advances require major rethinking, not just more studies. We must think through what we should do that is different in fundamental ways from what we are doing.” In fact, Quarantelli's (1994, p. 15) observation that “there are only a handful of publications on general methodological issues in doing disaster research” still holds true today. This seems to be no different in crisis research. With many newcomers in the field, it is important to make up the balance. Have steps been taken in our field to broaden the methodological scope? Did new researchers to the field also introduce new methodologies and approaches? Our third concern relates to the focus on specific phases of a crisis or disaster. The differentiation between mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Alexander, 2002) has helped disaster researchers to systematize and codify research results (Bosher et al., 2021; Neal, 1997). At the same time, the field has also been criticized for its putative preference for some phases of crises over others. Rosenthal and Kouzmin (1993, p. 6), for instance, wrote that “the dominant idea has always been that preventive efforts should be the main focus of crisis management.” In disaster studies, researchers have focused on criteria that enable an effective response (Dynes, 1994; Quarantelli, 1997). Yet, others have asked for insights into the incubation phase, the dynamics around specific trigger events, or the lessons learned during recovery (Lettieri et al., 2009). This discussion invites a systematic inventory on what really is the main focus in this budding field. This is what we intend to do here. In this systematic review, we reflect on the above concerns by sorting through 20 years of crisis and disaster literature (from 2001 to 2020) and charting the steps that have been taken to identify important trends and developments. We selected this time period of 2001–2020, as it reflects the period when the field considerably opened up to new researchers after key events like 9/11 (2001), the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004), and Hurricane Katrina (2005). We want to offer this overview of the field now, as we witness a similar influx of new researchers to our field in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. To construct a database for our review, we consulted key journals in the field of crisis and disaster management research, as we feel that trends and new developments are best projected in the core journals of the field. We selected a subset of relevant journals by consulting the Scopus Citescore database of 2019 to get the latest metrics on the 5-year journal impact factor in combination with the Scopus Citescore, as presented in Table 1. We complemented the data from the metrics with our historical understanding of the relative importance of specific journals. Based on this assessment, we selected four journals for our review: Disasters, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, and Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy. These journals represent the top four with the largest impact in 2019, balance crisis and disaster research, and/or have a historically important position in crisis and disaster research. Furthermore, all four journals share a social science orientation, and have considerable overlap on specific themes important to disaster and crisis researchers (Kuipers et al., 2019). The dataset was created by making use of the reference manager Endnote X9 in combination with the database Web of Science, which was exported into Microsoft Excel. Data were gathered on all 1.839 research articles published between 2001 and 2020 in JCCM (471); RHCPP (215); Disasters (840); and IJMED (313). General and content-based information was retrieved from the articles to assist in the classification of the data. The general classifications included author, year of publication, title, type (article, editorial, book review, etc.), volume, number, and abstract. We excluded book reviews and obituaries from our dataset. The content classifications provided the essence of the review and specified the type of research, type of case study, methodology, disaster phase, general topic of an article, and type of hazard. The lead author constructed the database and was aided by two research assistants in analyzing and categorizing the articles.2 Based on the title, abstract, and (when necessary) the full text, we categorized the type of research in the article (exploratory, explanatory, or conceptual), and what type of case study was involved in the analysis (single or comparative). We identified the methodology used by looking at the abstract or methods section and discerned between interviews, observations, document-, content analysis, survey or statistics, experiments, or formal modeling. We also looked at the disaster phases that received most attention in the articles. The phase was identified when it was specifically mentioned, or if it became clear from the focus of the article since not all articles focus explicitly on a specific phase (mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, or cross-phase). Finally, the general topic and the type of hazard were coded by making use of the classification previously employed by Kuipers and Welsh (2017). To ensure the quality of coding and achieve a satisfactory level of intercoder reliability, the research team held weekly meetings in which random years were checked for accuracy, and specific articles were discussed that offered concerns during the classification process. In these meetings, discrepancies or disagreements with coding were discussed and solved. All articles were coded by at least two researchers to ensure reliability, as they were also checked for consistency by the lead author who scanned through all coded articles, titles, and/or abstracts. After the data collection was complete, the data set was analyzed using Microsoft Excel by specific inquiries into years and specific categories like type of case study or the methodology that was used. Several graphs were created and discussed with authors and research assistants to observe and clarify trends. To highlight key publications that represented these trends, we ranked the top-cited articles per journal in each analytical category. We did so by consulting the Web of Science database in combination with Google Scholar (since not all journals are fully indexed in WoS). We used the parameter of citations/year to also include more recent well-cited publications in our review. Together, this provided a good indication of trends and key publications in crisis and disaster studies. When we look at the past two decades, the dominance of single case studies in both crisis and disaster studies prevails. Especially the disaster literature demonstrates a devoted preference for single case studies. If we zoom in on the underlying articles, we see a focus on a diverse set of disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina (Green et al., 2007; Kapucu, 2006; Messias et al., 2012), Hurricane Rita (Clukey, 2010), Hurricane Harvey (Grineski et al., 2020), the Kobe earthquake (Chang, 2010; Shaw & Goda, 2004), the 2010 Haiti earthquake (Altay & Labonte, 2014), floods in Bangladesh (Paul & Routray, 2010), Indian Ocean Tsunami (Telford & Cosgrave, 2007), Nepal Earthquake (Wolbers et al., 2016), and the Bam Earthquake in Iran (Mehregan et al., 2012). In addition, we see case studies of countries affected by multiple or prolonged hazards, such as flooding in Bangladesh (Alam & Collins, 2010), typhoons in the Philippines (Allen, 2006; Rodolfo & Siringan, 2006), and drought in Africa (Morton & Barton, 2002; Smucker & Wisner, 2008). The two peaks of single case studies in disaster studies of 2010 and 2014 are partially caused by multiple special issues on humanitarian action (Hilhorst et al., 2010; Jacoby & James, 2010) in combination with a number of papers focusing on the legacy of hurricane Katrina (Cepeda et al., 2010; Clukey, 2010; LaJoie et al., 2010) and the 2011 Fukushima/East Japan Earthquake (Cho, 2014; Jung & Moro, 2014; Nogami & Yoshida, 2014). This corresponds with our initial assessment that iconic disasters still draw much of our attention (Figure 1). Much cited (citations/year) comparative studies in disaster studies focus on, for instance, the role of social capital in disaster recovery (Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004), housing reconstruction (Wu & Lindell, 2004), damage and preparedness for tornadoes (Comstock & Mallonee, 2005), behavioral responses to earthquakes (Lindell et al., 2016), evacuation information needs (McCaffrey et al., 2013), cultural barriers to preparation (Ayeb-Karlsson et al., 2019), and humanitarian governance (Hilhorst et al., 2019). In the crisis literature, the number of comparative case studies is increasing, approaching the levels of single case studies throughout the past 20 years. Here, comparative case studies focus on subjects like policy learning in the aftermath of crises (Albright & Crow, 2015; Clay et al., 2018), the capacity of civil security systems across different countries (Kuipers et al., 2015), social media crisis communication (Eriksson & Olsson, 2016), collaborative crisis management (Deverell et al., 2019; Fisk et al., 2019), or policy responses to media frenzies (Lodge & Hood, 2002). Well-cited single case studies focus on Hurricane Katrina (Corey & Deitch, 2011; Parker et al., 2009), Hurricane Rita (Lutz & Lindell, 2008), Three Mile Island (Hopkins, 2001), an oil industry accident (Crichton et al., 2005), the French heatwave (Lagadec, 2004), the California Electricity Crisis (Schulman et al., 2004), and the Queensland floods (Olsson, 2014). Analogous to the single case study trend, exploratory research prevails in both fields and shows a slight upward trend. Our knowledge about disasters is mostly based on exploratory studies, while in the crisis literature we see a steady increase in explanatory studies in the last decade (2011–2020). The number of conceptual studies remains relatively steady in both the crisis and disaster literatures throughout the years. In the crisis literature, we do witness a shift from the emphasis on conceptual work in the first decade (2001–2010), towards the dominance of exploratory and explanatory research more recently (2011–2020) (Figure 2). While conceptual papers do not constitute a large proportion of the total number of publications, they are amongst the top-cited papers in the field. The reason is that conceptual papers cover much-debated topics and instigate important theoretical developments. The top 10 most cited (citation/year) conceptual papers in disaster studies advance key topics, such as resilience (Manyena, 2006), vulnerability (Bankoff, 2001; Thomalla et al., 2006), social capital (Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004), disaster risk reduction and climate change (Mercer et al., 2010; Schipper & Pelling, 2006; Van Aalst, 2006), preparedness (Perry & Lindell, 2003), migration (Jacobsen & Landau, 2003) and the role of social media (Houston et al., 2015). In crisis management, we witness a stark similarity in topics among the top 10 most cited conceptual papers a year, which cover resilience (Boin & McConnell, 2007; Comfort et al., 2001; Somers, 2009), social media (Gonzalez-Herrera & Smith, 2008; Reuter & Kaufhold, 2018; Veil et al., 2011), citizen response to disasters (Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004), disaster planning (McConnell & Drennan, 2006), policy change (Nohrstedt & Weible, 2010), crisis management as the management of exceptions (Roux-Dufort, 2007), and a typology of crises (Gundel, 2005). In addition, a number of articles reflect on the foundations of the field through taxonomies of crises (Kuipers & Welsh, 2017), or discuss types of crisis, such as the transboundary crisis (Boin, 2019) and the creeping crisis (Boin et al., 2020). In the first lustrum (2001–2005), crisis research was largely based on secondary data collection through document analysis. In these years, the main focus was on crises such as 9/11 and terrorism (Perry & Lindell, 2003), anthrax (Day, 2003), and the French heat wave (Lagadec, 2004). Over the following years, we witnessed the rise of primary data collection and use through interviews and observations, complemented by surveys and statistics. Interestingly, the diversity of methods in crisis research is also increasing with more experimental studies (Helm & Tolsdorf, 2013; Pramanik et al., 2015; Schraagen et al., 2010). The last decade (2011–2020) shows a balance between interviews/observations, document/content analysis, and survey/statistics, as primary methods of research (Figure 3). In disaster research, articles published in the first decade (2001–2010) evenly use interviews/observations, document analysis, and survey methodologies. A clear shift is visible in the second decade (2011–2020) towards interviews and observations, indicating the prominence of field research in the aftermath of disasters and conflict settings (Lu & Xu, 2015; Roll & Swenson, 2019; Van der Haar et al., 2013). The growth of primary data collection goes hand in hand with the decline of document analysis throughout the last decades. Interestingly, survey research remains relatively steady throughout the years, making up about a third of disaster methodologies, forming another major input for data collection in the wake of disasters (Chiu et al., 2002; Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004; Paul & Bhuiyan, 2010; Van Egmond et al., 2004). Compared to crisis research, however, there is a clear absence of experimental or modeling studies. The contrast with the growing methodological diversity in crisis research is stark (Figure 4). Although there has been an increasing use of different methods in crisis and disaster research since Quarantelli's early observations on doing more of the same (1994), we note that there are still a limited number of methodological papers (Antonsen, 2009; Grais et al., 2006; Greathouse, 2010; Jacobsen & Landau, 2003; Rivera, 2019; Stephen & Downing, 2001). When Rosenthal and Kouzmin (1993) claimed that we need to focus on preventing crises, it reflected the dominant idea in the first decade of our research period (2001–2010). In this decade, the focus was on topics such as preparation (Elsubbaugh et al., 2004; McConnell & Drennan, 2006), contingency planning (Balamir, 2002; Ten Brinke et al., 2010), homeland security (Reddick, 2007), vulnerabilities (Medd & Marvin, 2005), and preparing for critical infrastructure breakdowns (Boin & McConnell, 2007). In subsequent years, attention shifted from preparedness towards response (2011–2020). Since 2009, a growing number of studies began to focus on the response phase. This shift is visible in the research on incident command (Barton et al., 2015; Curnin et al., 2015; Wolbers & Boersma, 2013), collaborative networks (Larsson, 2017; Oscarsson, 2019, Therrien & Normandin, 2020), crisis communication (Olsson, 2014; Palttala et al., 2012), and, most recently, social media research (Reuter & Kaufhold, 2018; Wukich, 2019) (Figure 5). In the past 5 years (2016–2020), we see renewed attention for recovery, pushed forward by interest in resilience in the aftermath of disasters such as hurricanes in the United States (Baker et al, 2018; Houston et al., 2017; Roque et al., 2020; Smith et al, 2018; Walsh et al., 2015), Nepal earthquake (Kumar, 2020) and the Great East Japan Earthquake (Ono, 2017), as well as institutional crises (Useem et al., 2017). In contrast, issues of mitigation received little attention in crisis research throughout the past 20 years (Joyner & Orgera, 2013; Sadiq, 2010). Disaster studies are characterized by a dominant interest in the response phase in the first decade (2001–2010). This is follow" @default.
W3216943535 created "2021-12-06" @default.
W3216943535 creator A5034562538 @default.
W3216943535 creator A5062838941 @default.
W3216943535 creator A5081367804 @default.
W3216943535 date "2021-11-24" @default.
W3216943535 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
W3216943535 title "A systematic review of 20 years of crisis and disaster research: Trends and progress" @default.
W3216943535 cites W1493528063 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1523023302 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1525852713 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1534870147 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1539845684 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1552351610 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1553945383 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1568456164 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1638501542 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1787786919 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1865206509 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1880786656 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1904774510 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1947384350 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1965782358 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1970483086 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1977613858 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1979126948 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1981470336 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1983237526 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1984642832 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1985637671 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1990431235 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1991343477 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1994451579 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1994973554 @default.
W3216943535 cites W1999910162 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2012938211 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2016640294 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2017202648 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2029614647 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2030524967 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2031485147 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2036760886 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2037161308 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2039571631 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2040182694 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2040615290 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2046520163 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2048573433 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2052751291 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2058006000 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2061162787 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2065527476 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2066213839 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2073476291 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2077407395 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2085378668 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2087281754 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2092394261 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2095340119 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2097173839 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2097617594 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2098783490 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2099739542 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2103785231 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2104837328 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2105400825 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2105455466 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2106636562 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2107119849 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2108375716 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2109172569 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2109348401 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2109784182 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2116047089 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2117450405 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2119126109 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2119612382 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2125218573 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2125426669 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2129998500 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2133762597 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2134452734 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2138909925 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2143372287 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2144141455 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2149635452 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2152701852 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2155977248 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2156846304 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2163074477 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2163785035 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2165042656 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2165500311 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2165745535 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2253485686 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2335311326 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2421779860 @default.
W3216943535 cites W2425831785 @default.