Disaster studies inside out

Abstract

Disaster studies is faced with a fascinating anomaly: frequently it claims to be critical and innovative, as suggested by the so‐called vulnerability paradigm that emerged more than 40 years ago, yet often it is perpetuating some of the core and problematic tenets of the hazard paradigm that we were asked to challenge initially. This paper interrogates why such an anomaly persists. In so doing, it employs Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony to unpack why disaster studies is still dominated by Western epistemologies and scholars that perpetuate an orientalist view of disasters. Ultimately, it suggests a research agenda for the 40 years to come, which builds on the importance of local researchers analysing local disasters using local epistemologies, especially in the non‐Western world. Such subaltern disaster studies are to be fuelled by increasing consciousness of the need to resist the hegemony of Western scholarship and to relocate disaster studies within the realm of its original political agenda.

Looking forward:Disastersat 40

“…In addition to being important on an individual and communal level (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2014a; Gaillard et al, 2017), this also includes addressing the structural factors and processes that prevent lives from being lost, when knowledge and mechanisms clearly exist to do so. A recurrent theme at the fortieth anniversary conference of Disasters was how to implement what we already know, rather than continuing to find new avenues for research and practice that ultimately often end up 'recycling' longstanding proposals (Gaillard, 2018). Indeed, one key challenge, in the context of current and future disasters, is how to put into practice what we have collectively come to know, when resources either are not provided or are implicitly or explicitly blocked, and when responsibilities are shunned or dodged rather than upheld.…”

Critiquing and Joining Intersections of Disaster, Conflict, and Peace Research

“…Peters et al (2019b) suggested that cavalier DRR activities have the potential to escalate conflict in certain circumstances. Ker-Lindsay (2007) noted that conflicts tend to be multidimensional, stemming from multiple factors, and they are dynamic as parties take various actions or inactions and as new issues emerge-a summary and ethos that matches the findings from decades of disaster research (Gaillard 2019). When viewed through a disaster diplomacy lens, ''conflict and non-conflict disasters are inextricably linked'' (Kelman 2012, p. 1), since both types of disasters are constructed through patterns of human action and inaction and emerge from this history.…”

Lost (and found?) in translation: key terminology in disaster studies

“…In this section, we will provide a brief overview of the meanings of and debates around the terms that we are discussing in this paper (the summary is presented in Table 1). We will also demonstrate some of the translations to emphasise that the terms used in disaster studies are not only conceptualised in English but are also tied to a particularly Anglophone approach to research (Kelman, 2018;Gaillard, 2019).…”