Summary
The article by Quarantelli and Dynes (1977) discusses the topic of social crises and disasters; it summarizes the related literature published during the 1960s-1970s. The authors focused on studies where the term “disaster” denoted social phenomena, omitting the literature pertaining to “natural hazards” or technological catastrophes; an attempt was made to concentrate on omissions and problems ignored in publications (Quarantelli & Dynes, 1977).
Quarantelli and Dynes (1977) observe that there had been several attempts to generalize and codify existing findings on disasters; several such studies are mentioned. Most codification attempts are stated to have a severe drawback, i.e. being based on data that only pertains to a single set of events, which considerably limits these generalization efforts; however, despite this, different generalizations based on different disaster events often come to very similar conclusions.
It is highlighted that although social psychological emphasis had tended to dominate in sociology earlier, the disaster studies of the 1960s-1970s mainly focused on social organizational issues. This is viewed as positive, for the causes of disasters were sought in the social structure and conditions, rather than only in psychological characteristics of people. It is noted that groups rather than individuals were used as basic units for disaster studies; however, there existed several problems related to this fact, such as the difficulty to define the boundaries of certain social groups, making it hard to choose methods of study, as well as to pinpoint the object of study itself. Also, small (in size) groups lack formal structure and the “division of labor,” which further complicates their study. Another difficulty is related to the fact that disasters are often addressed by groups that emerge because of that disaster (Quarantelli & Dynes, 1977).
The authors summarize that disaster research often concentrates on systems addressing the disasters; these studies utilize approaches related to collective behavior and complex organization. This led to an emergence of a link between collective behavior and complex organization studies (Quarantelli & Dynes, 1977).
Quarantelli and Dynes (1977) also highlight that the pre-disaster period is often viewed as a source of post-disaster events by researchers; this principle of continuity is stated to seem to apply both to individual and social behavior.
Additionally, Quarantelli and Dynes (1977) summarize that many studies tend to concentrate on long-term outcomes of disasters, both functional and dysfunctional; it is stressed that while previous research only focused on adverse outcomes of disasters, the reviewed studies also highlight some of their positive consequences, such as increased solidarity of victims. The authors also point out that the methods of model building are often used in disaster studies.
On the whole, the authors note that disaster studies became more institutionalized in academia and that such research achieved some support from federal structures. A “critical mass” of disaster scholars apparently appeared, enabling further development of this sphere. Finally, the authors observed that numerous areas related to disasters, both theoretical and practical, still required extensive research (such as the need to develop theoretical background, confirm the existing generalizations, and expand the studies beyond the territory of the U.S.) (Quarantelli & Dynes, 1977).
Critical Remarks
Generally speaking, the authors delivered a thorough overview of disaster studies in the 1960s-1970s. However, it should be noted that studies of social response to e.g. natural and technological hazards also require attention.
The authors stressed that some groups acting during and after a disaster lack clear “division of labor” and definite structure. It may be suggested that such lack of structure might be viewed as an essential feature of some groups, and the processes of distribution of tasks in such groups may be studied separately.
Finally, the authors’ observation that disaster studies should be expanded beyond the territory of the U.S. is rather apt; it is noteworthy that reactions to disasters may differ considerably in other settings.
Discussion Questions
- Compare the benefits and drawbacks of using social organizational vs. social-psychological approach to disaster studies.
- Do you believe that the use of the term “disaster” to refer to certain social phenomena (organized by certain groups) may sometimes be ideologically driven? Why?
Reference
Quarantelli, E. L., & Dynes, R. R. (1977). Response to social crisis and disaster. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 23-49.