Integrating crisis early warning systems: power in the community of practice

Abstract

This paper argues the importance of integrating power considerations into the study of the communities of practice in European studies and International Relations. Since its introduction, the 'community of practice' concept has been criticised for implying overly consensual relations of its members. Notably, the concept has been criticised for underplaying the relations of power affecting the structure and processes of the communities of practice. Drawing on this critique, this paper offers a framework for integrating the considerations of power into the study of the communities of practice in European studies and International Relations. The argument is illustrated with the case of crisis early warning systems, following the European Union's initiative to integrate them at the global level. While the case analysis mainly serves the purpose of probing the suitability of the theoretical framework, it offers insights into some of the powerrelated challenges facing the community of crisis early warning practitioners.

Event-Centric Temporal Knowledge Graph Construction: A Survey

“…Similar approaches have been employed to construct knowledge graphs, such as the Global Database of Event Language and Tone (GDELT) [150] and the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (ICEWS) [151]. These knowledge graphs contain temporal information about events sourced from news articles, government reports, and other publicly available documents.…”

Europe under occupation: the European diplomatic community of practice in the Jerusalem area

“…The expression "community of practice" has spread widely in IR (Adler 2008, Adler 2009, Bicchi 2011, Bremberg 2014, Davies 2015, Goff 2015, Zwolski 2016 as well as in studies of European diplomacies (see for instance Graeger, Bremberg, and Merand/Rayroux in this issue). But it is still crucial to summarise the concept's definition and highlight the elements that identify a CoP, in order to have a 'blueprint' for recognising one and understanding how it works.…”

Semantic model-driven development for IoT interoperability of emergency services

“…In the DRR literature, there are two main points of view regarding the EWS concept: the point of view of institutional and social aspects, which focuses on the integrated processes performed by multiple stakeholders, as in [31,[97][98][99][100][101]; and the ICT point of view, which focuses on the technological components of an EWS, as in [14,16,17,34,38,102,103]. The institutional point of view fits into the strategy and business levels of an enterprise architecture, while the ICT point of view fits into the application, technology and physical levels.…”

“…The Drools rules management system has a CEP engine 31 (initially called as Drools Fusion) that enables the selection of events from a set, as well as correlation, aggregation, composition, streaming, temporal relation constraints and sliding windows. The SCENE platform was introduced in [190] as an extension of Drools Fusion that adapts the Drools Rule Language (DRL) to natively support situation types and the situation lifecycle management, involving composite situation pattern recognition based on the situation activation and deactivation instants (time points inherited from the lower-level events).…”

“…The Sendai framework emphasizes the requirement to share disaster risk information and to increase data availability towards a multi-hazard integrated global warning and response system, which must be tailored to user needs across distinct and overlapping domains [29]. At the EU level, the low level of information sharing within and across organizations is the major problem to integrate EWSs, which led to the EU initiative to integrate all official EWSs at the global level [31].…”