Communication under Fire: The Role of Embeddedness in the Emergence and Efficacy of Disaster Response Communication Networks

Nowell, Branda; Steelman, Toddi A.

doi:10.1093/jopart/muu021

Cited by 64 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From a social-structural perspective, however, perceived influence depends on direct and, possibly, indirect connections with others (Smith et al 2014), and on the location in the overall network rather than rules and institutions (Ibarra 1993;Wellman and Berkowitz 1988). An important insight from policy process theory (Howlett and Ramesh 1995;Laumann and Knoke 1987) and neo-institutionalism (Mayntz and Scharpf 1995) is that the two perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive: institutions (formal, informal, and operational rules; see Kiser and Ostrom 1982) and structures can influence one another (see also Choi and Robertson 2013;Novell and Steelman 2014;Park and Rethemeyer 2012).…”

Section: Structures and Institutions As Sources Of Influence Reputationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although policy networks are mostly concerned with decision making, collaborative networks are established for implementing and providing public goods (Schalk, René, and Allen 2009: 630; see also Huang and Provan 2007;Lubell and Fulton 2007;Novell and Steelman 2014;Rethemeyer and Hatmaker 2007, 620). In some applications-mainly concerning natural resource management-the boundaries between the two are blurred by analyzing decision making in local policy networks as a common good (Bodin and Crona 2009;Calanni et al 2014;Henry, Lubell, and McCoy 2011;Ingold, Balsiger, and Hirschi 2010;Lubell and Scholz 2001;Scholz and Wang 2006).…”

Section: Structural Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Ingold

Leifeld

2014

JOPART

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central assumption in the literature on collaborative networks and policy networks is that political outcomes are affected by a variety of state and nonstate actors. Some of these actors are more powerful than others and can therefore have a considerable effect on decision making. In this article, we seek to provide a structural and institutional explanation for these power differentials in policy networks and support the explanation with empirical evidence. We use a dyadic measure of influence reputation as a proxy for power, and posit that influence reputation over the political outcome is related to vertical integration into the political system by means of formal decisionmaking authority, and to horizontal integration by means of being well embedded into the policy network. Hence, we argue that actors are perceived as influential because of two complementary factors: (a) their institutional roles and (b) their structural positions in the policy network. Based on temporal and cross-sectional exponential random graph models, we compare five cases about climate, telecommunications, flood prevention, and toxic chemicals politics in Switzerland and Germany. The five networks cover national and local networks at different stages of the policy cycle. The results confirm that institutional and structural drivers seem to have a crucial impact on how an actor is perceived in decision making and implementation and, therefore, their ability to significantly shape outputs and service delivery.

show abstract

Section: Structures and Institutions As Sources Of Influence Reputationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Structural Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Ingold

Leifeld

2014

JOPART

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A sizable body of empirical research has identified homophily as a core relational variable underwriting the formation of groups and organisations (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, 2001;Petev, 2013), facilitating effective communication (Rogers, 2003), and the growth of inter-organisational collaboration (Powell et al, 2005). Nowell and Steelman (2014) studied networks and interaction in three large wildfires in the American Southwest. Nowell and Steelman (2014) studied networks and interaction in three large wildfires in the American Southwest.…”

Section: Entanglements and Emergent Network In Incident Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The roles of bridging actors in emergency response networks can be important to disaster response outcomes (Kapucu, 2006;Nowell and Steelman, 2014). Bridging actors connect portions of a network that otherwise might be disconnected, enabling information and resources to flow from one part to another.…”

Section: Introduction: Network In Disastersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of preference and practice: bridging actors in wildfire response networks in the American Northwest

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The roles of bridging actors in emergency response networks can be important to disaster response outcomes. This paper is based on an evaluation of wildfire preparedness and response networks in 21 large-scale wildfire events in the wildland-urban interface near national forests in the American Northwest. The study investigated how key individuals in responder networks anticipated seeking out specific people in perceived bridging roles prior to the occurrence of wildfires, and then captured who in fact assumed these roles during actual large-scale events. It examines two plausible, but contradictory, bodies of theory-similarity and dissimilarity-that suggest who people might seek out as bridgers and who they would really go to during a disaster. Roughly one-half of all pre-fire nominations were consistent with similarity. Yet, while similarity is a reliable indicator of how people expect to organise, it does not hold up for how they organise during the real incident.

show abstract

“…The existing research shows that strong ties are important for a successful transfer of complex, tacit, and sensitive knowledge (Huang, 2014). Frequent interaction and great familiarity are associated with better communication in disaster response communication networks (Nowell & Steelman, 2014). Trust in strong ties facilitates difficult cross-boundary collaboration (Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010), which is common in disaster response networks (Moynihan, 2009a(Moynihan, , 2009b.…”

Section: Theory Of Embeddednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embeddedness in cross-agency collaboration and emergency management capability: Evidence from Shanghai's urban contingency plans

Fan

Liu

Huang

et al. 2019

Government Information Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TGovernments are increasingly emphasizing emergency management in response to public emergencies that cause extensive consequences and involve multiple government agencies. One of the influential measures adopted by governments is the establishment of cross-agency networks. Scholars have validated the importance of cross-agency collaboration and networks, but only a few studies have examined cross-agency information sharing and utilization mechanism of joint emergency actions. Inspired by the theory of network embeddedness, we study the joint effects of informational and task attributes of embeddedness and absorptive capacity of the leading agency on collaborative emergency capacity. Our data consist of 110 local government contingency plans collected from F District in Shanghai, China. We found that a well-structured cross-agency network and a leading department with great information accessibility will significantly affect the efficiency of emergency collaborations. The capacity to absorb information significantly enhances the improvement of emergency collaboration.

show abstract

Communication under Fire: The Role of Embeddedness in the Emergence and Efficacy of Disaster Response Communication Networks

Cited by 64 publications

References 52 publications

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Patterns of preference and practice: bridging actors in wildfire response networks in the American Northwest

Embeddedness in cross-agency collaboration and emergency management capability: Evidence from Shanghai's urban contingency plans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About