Desaster Research at The Crossroads

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
From the Margins to the

Mainstream? Disaster
Access provided by b-on: Universidade Fernando Pessoa (UFP) on 10/11/16. For personal use only.
Research at the Crossroads

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:503-525. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Kathleen J. Tierney
Department of Sociology and Institute of Behavioral Science, Natural Hazards Center,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0482; email: tierneyk@colorado.edu
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007. 33:503–25 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on sociology of disasters, environmental sociology, sociology of risk
April 18, 2007
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at Abstract

http://soc.annualreviews.org
The sociology of disasters has developed in ways that have weak-
This article’s doi: ened its ties with mainstream sociology. It has remained remarkably
10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131743
resistant to changes in the broader sociological landscape, and its
Copyright c 2007 by Annual Reviews. strong applied focus has been a barrier to theoretical innovation.
All rights reserved
This situation is changing, as indicated by critiques of traditional
0360-0572/07/0811-0503$20.00 ways of conceptualizing and explaining disasters; greater acceptance
of constructivist formulations; willingness to acknowledge that dis-
asters are accompanied by both social solidarity and social conflict;
and recognition of the significance of the interaction of disasters
and risk with gender, class, and other axes of inequality. However,
the field is unlikely to overcome its marginal status without signifi-
cant efforts to link the sociology of disasters with the related fields
of risk and environmental sociology and, more broadly, to focus on
core sociological concerns, such as social inequality, diversity, and
social change.
503
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
INTRODUCTION: HOW WE and other extreme events in the United States

GOT HERE began with a focus on a relatively limited set of
questions that were of concern to government
A recent National Research Council report
and military leaders, centering mainly on po-
(2006) describes the disaster research commu-
tential public responses in the event of a nu-
nity in sociology and other social sciences as
clear war. Would the public panic in the face of
consisting of three groups: core researchers
nuclear attack? Would victimized populations
who spend their entire careers within the dis-
be so demoralized that they would be unable
aster specialty area; a second group of re-
to participate actively in wartime recovery ef-
searchers who make periodic contributions to
forts? Would civil unrest break out among
the field but who generally spend their time
populations suffering the depredations of nu-

working in other areas; and scholars who be-
clear war? Answers to questions like these had
come involved in the field episodically, typi-
already been provided through research con-
cally as a consequence of disasters that affect

ducted during World War II ( Janis 1951).
the geographic areas in which they work. The
Nonetheless, funders believed more research
field is a small one, and research has gener-
was needed, and they also believed that natu-
ally reflected the perspectives and priorities
ral and technological disasters provided useful
of core investigators. Exceptions include im-
laboratories for studying social behavior un-
portant contributions by noncore researchers
der conditions of large-scale physical destruc-
like Rossi and collaborators (Rossi et al. 1982,
tion and social disruption. For their part, pi-
Wright et al. 1983), Turner et al. (1986),
oneering researchers in the field saw disasters
Erikson (1976, 1994), and Perrow (1984). In
as contexts in which to explore fundamental
this discussion, I briefly trace the evolution
research opportunities on topics such as orga-
of the field, with an emphasis on the manner
nizational and collective behavior under high-
in which perspectives developed by core re-
stress conditions (Quarantelli 1987).
searchers have both defined the field and lim-
Following these priorities, sociological re-
ited its scope. This is not an exhaustive his-
search on disasters initially focused on the
tory; rather my intention is to show how the
study of organized behavior during and im-
concerns of pioneer researchers have shaped
mediately following disaster impact. Rapid-
disaster inquiry. I then outline challenges
response studies were undertaken in the late
to classic sociological perspectives, highlight
1940s and early 1950s, mainly by teams from
new developments, and suggest directions in
the University of Chicago’s National Opinion
which the field should move, particularly with
Research Center (NORC) and the National
respect to needed theoretical advances.
Academy of Sciences (Fritz & Marks 1954).
As sections below demonstrate, disaster
The current status of disaster research in
research is a field at the crossroads. Should
sociology is a direct reflection of how the core
longstanding practices prevail, this already
research cohort developed. The founding of
marginalized field risks becoming irrelevant
the Disaster Research Center (DRC) at the
within the broader discipline of sociology. At
Ohio State University in 1963 marked a sig-
the same time, moving disaster research into
nificant milestone. One DRC founder, E. L.
mainstream sociology will require the field to
Quarantelli, who had been trained at NORC,
discard a good deal of historical baggage and
was influenced by research traditions in col-
theorize disaster in new ways.
lective behavior and symbolic interaction-
ism. The other two founders, Russell Dynes
PIONEERING DISASTER and J. Eugene Haas, were organizational re-
RESEARCH searchers. Guided by its own substantive con-
Initiated during the early days of the Cold cerns and by the priorities of funding agen-
War, sociological research on natural disasters cies, DRC developed a research focus on both
504 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
organizational and emergent social behavior ing societal systems and subsystems, requiring
during and immediately following disasters. adaptation on the part of affected social units.
Multiple methods, including experiments, Indeed, systems concepts were embedded in
were employed in various DRC studies, but the classic definition of disaster as
fieldwork methods, consisting of in-depth in-
terviews, observation, and the collection of [a]n event, concentrated in time and space, in
archival materials, were favored over more which a society, or a relatively self-sufficient
quantitative and survey approaches. subdivision of a society, undergoes severe
In the 1960s and early 1970s, DRC also danger and incurs such losses to its mem-
conducted field research following episodes of bers and physical appurtenances that the so-
civil unrest in U.S. cities and demonstrations cial structure is disrupted and the fulfillment
on U.S. campuses. Much of this work cen- of all or some of the essential functions of the
tered on the ways in which organized behavior society is prevented (Fritz 1961, p. 655).
during riots, characterized as dissensus crises,

differed from behavior following disasters, As discussed below, virtually every aspect
which were categorized as consensus crises. of Fritz’s definition—that disasters are events,
For example, although looting had been found that they are concentrated in time and space,
to be extremely rare following disasters, loot- that physical losses are an essential element in
ing in many ways constituted the essence of disasters, and so on—is problematic and con-
1960s-style urban unrest. At the same time, tested, and yet his conceptualization remains
researchers stressed that organized behavior highly influential (see Bolin & Stanford 1998
in both consensus and dissensus crises is influ- for discussions on this particular aspect of the
enced by normative constraints (Quarantelli field’s resistance to change).
& Dynes 1970). Sociological research on disasters was also
Early publications focused on debunking influenced by the natural hazards perspective,
common-sense assumptions and myths con- originally developed by geographer Gilbert
cerning disaster behavior. Classic empirical White. White had conducted research and
work in the field challenged widely held myths advised the federal government on water re-
concerning public panic, postdisaster law- sources, floods, and other environmental is-
lessness, disaster shock, and negative men- sues since the 1930s. Like Quarantelli, White
tal health outcomes. In place of these myths, received his doctorate from the University of
early research stressed positive behaviors and Chicago; prior to his move to the University
outcomes that characterize disaster settings, of Colorado in 1969, he had been a faculty
such as enhanced community morale, declines member and chair of the geography depart-
in crime and other antisocial behavior, re- ment at Chicago. After moving to Colorado,
duction in status differences, suspension of White initiated the National Science Foun-
predisaster conflicts in the interests of com- dation (NSF)–funded assessment of research
munity safety, the development of therapeu- on natural hazards and founded the Natural
tic communities, and organizational adapta- Hazards Center at the University of Colorado
tion and innovation. Similarly, in research on in 1976.
collective violence, sociological studies de- Following the conceptual framework de-
bunked common-sense notions that linked veloped earlier by White, Hazards Center
unrest to behavioral contagion and “mob psy- research focused on human and societal ad-
chology” (Fritz 1961, Barton 1969, Dynes justments to natural hazards. Adjustments in-
1970, Quarantelli & Dynes 1972). clude avoiding hazards entirely, for example
Systems theory was the most frequently through land-use planning and development
used perspective in early disaster research. Ex- restrictions; mitigating the impacts of extreme
treme events were seen as disrupting ongo- events through measures such as building
www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 505

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
codes; spreading risks through the provision disasters for nuclear war planning. Theoret-
of insurance; preparing for extreme events, ical concerns generally took a back seat to
with a focus on different units of analysis, practical ones.
such as households and entire communities; Classic research on extreme events was
and responding to and recovering from such guided by realist assumptions. On the one
events (White 1974, Burton et al. 1978). Re- hand, it was long acknowledged that disas-
search activities thus focused beyond imme- ter events were not the product of natural
diate postdisaster responses and spanned the forces alone. Instead, disasters represent the
entire hazard cycle. The center trained gradu- juxtaposition of physical agents (earthquakes,
ate students from a range of social science dis- hurricanes, tornadoes, industrial accidents)
ciplines, including geography, sociology, eco- with vulnerable places and populations. On
nomics, and political science. the other hand, researchers took for granted
DRC and the Hazards Center shaped that disasters do exist out there as distinct
the field of disaster research in important events. Despite extended arguments challeng-
ways, especially through their long records of ing their validity and usefulness (see papers in
funded research and knowledge-transfer ac- Quarantelli 1998, Perry & Quarantelli 2005),
tivities and the support they provided to sub- realist and event-based perspectives continue
sequent generations of disaster researchers. to dominate the field.
Sociologists trained at these centers became Indeed, one noteworthy feature of socio-
leaders in the field and went on to establish or logical disaster research is the extent to which
direct other centers. The centers also influ- the field has resisted change over time. Part
enced the development of knowledge through of this resistance stems from the strong con-
their affiliations with funding agencies; for ex- sensus that built up among core researchers
ample, sociologists have managed the hazards concerning conceptual frameworks, research
and disaster research program in the NSF En- methods, and appropriate topics for study.
gineering Directorate since the program’s in- In this same vein, the inbred nature of the
ception in the 1970s. field—that is, the fact that so many schol-
Although a number of other pioneer- ars have been trained by so few mentors, and
ing researchers were also highly influential, over time by the students of those mentors—
through their respective centers, Quarantelli, is a key source of inertia. In addition, reflect-
Dynes, and White established the parameters ing its problem-focused origins and research
of mainstream disaster research. Research was concerns, the field has not kept apace with the-
guided either implicitly or explicitly by sys- oretical developments in sociology. Nonethe-
tems concepts. Disasters were seen as con- less, the introduction of alternative perspec-
sensus crises that enhanced social solidarity tives on disaster has moved the field forward.
and suppressed conflict. Particularly in work These approaches challenge both the assump-
guided by White’s natural hazards perspec- tions on which earlier findings were based
tive, disasters were seen as having their root and, in some cases, the findings themselves.
causes in societal actions (or nonactions) that
limit options for adjusting to environmental
extremes. ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES
Reflecting its applied origins, the field fo- ON DISASTERS
cused on describing and categorizing social
behaviors and processes that are common to
Conceptual and Theoretical Shifts
disaster events and on identifying best prac- Constructivist insights. Although realist in
tices for managing hazards and disasters. For its overall tone, disaster research has be-
example, early research reports included dis- come increasingly open to social construc-
cussions on the implications of research on tionist perspectives. Even though no specific
506 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
researcher or group of researcher has explic- not consistent with commonsense, scholarly,
itly concentrated on the social construction of or even official definitions of disaster. For ex-
disasters, constructionism has influenced so- ample, the Mariel Boatlift of 1979 was a pres-
ciological disaster research through a process identially declared disaster, as was the space
of gradual assimilation at different levels of shuttle Columbia accident of 2003 (Sylves
analysis. 1996, Platt 1999, Downton & Pielke 2001).
At the most basic level, the causes of dis- Declarations also reflect what Platt (1999)
asters are socially constructed. For example, terms disaster gerrymandering, or the non-
in his analysis of the 1755 Lisbon earth- need-based drawing of lines around officially
quake, Dynes (2000) shows how interpreta- designated disaster areas for political reasons.
tions of and responses to that event, which he These same factors also delineate what
terms the first modern disaster, reflected the constitutes disaster victimization and how aid
broader transition from religious to secular is provided to putative victims. For exam-
world views that was occurring in Europe at ple, in the United States, until 1950, when
that time. Both public perceptions and schol- the Disaster Relief Act was passed, manag-
arly frames have shifted in ways that now see ing the consequences of disasters was not even
so-called natural disasters as human-induced. defined as a federal government responsibil-
In Hurricane Katrina, the hurricane itself may ity. Before then, disasters were generally seen
have been natural, but the disaster is attributed as personal misfortunes, and with certain ex-
more to the human contribution made by ne- ceptions, which were determined on an ad
glect of the levees, over-reliance on large- hoc basis, assistance was provided primarily
scale flood control projects, the destruction through charitable institutions. Even after the
of wetlands and barrier islands that could have passage of the 1950 act, government aid was
buffered impacts of the hurricane, and deci- given to communities for repair and restora-
sions that put nonevacuees at risk of death and tion of public infrastructure, but not to fam-
injury (Cutter 2005). Interestingly, Spector & ilies or businesses. Those types of programs
Kitsuse’s (1977) seminal piece on construc- were not put in place until the late 1960s (Platt
tionism discusses alternative interpretations 1999). As new negative disaster effects were
of floods as natural, or as caused by human constructed, additional needs were identified,
action, to illustrate how such phenomena are and new aid programs often followed. For ex-
socially constructed. ample, the notion that disasters create men-
Politics and institutional practices also in- tal health problems for victims became an el-
fluence the construction of disasters. In the ement in the social construction of disaster
United States, the president has the author- victimization following the 1972 Hurricane
ity to declare whether an event constitutes Agnes floods in Pennsylvania, and the fed-
a disaster—authority that allows for consid- eral government subsequently began mak-
erable discretion, particularly when events ing funds for mental health assistance avail-
fall somewhere between smaller emergen- able upon the passage of Public Law 93-288,
cies and large catastrophes. Not surprisingly, known as the Stafford Act, in 1974. This new
disaster declarations do not parallel directly frame drew support from both victim advo-
the severity of disaster events during a given cacy groups and the broader community men-
period. Rather, declarations are influenced tal health movement (Taylor 1976).
by such factors as election year politics, the Disasters and hazards can also be inten-
“CNN effect,” and states’ ability to rapidly tionally reconstructed to serve institutional
compile high-dollar preliminary damage esti- interests. Because the city of San Francisco
mates, which then become the basis for federal needed funding from eastern banks in or-
aid requests. Presidents also use their discre- der to recover following the 1906 earth-
tion to issue declarations for events that are quake and firestorms, local elites spearheaded

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
a campaign to characterize that city as having officials first denied that the heat was a mat-
been heavily damaged by fires, rather than by ter of concern and then blamed the victims
the earthquake itself, to downplay the earth- for rejecting government efforts to provide
quake hazard in the Bay Area. To have done assistance. Heat waves also proved deadly in
otherwise might have slowed down invest- Europe in 2003 and again in the United States
ment in recovery and development (Hansen in 2006, when an estimated 140 people died in
& Condon 1989, Steinberg 2001). At the California alone during the month of July—
same time, the 1906 earthquake also mobi- more fatalities than have resulted from all
lized California seismologists and engineers in California earthquakes in the last 35 years.
their initial efforts to construct earthquakes as Why should heat waves not be considered
a problem requiring intense study and govern- as major perils alongside floods, tornadoes,
mental intervention (Geschwind 1996). Davis and hurricanes? One answer is that heat waves
(1998) documents how Los Angeles, a city only kill, rather than causing property dam-
that he characterizes as suffering from perma- age, and that physical damage is essential to
nent disaster amnesia, developed as a mod- the conceptualization of disasters. Such an an-
ern metropolis by consistently downplaying swer is quite unsatisfying for a field concerned
dangers such as earthquakes, wildfires, and with the social dimensions of extreme events.
floods while undertaking Herculean efforts to However, one can argue that property damage
control nature. is constructed as an essential element in disas-
From the perspective of the social con- ters because that is the perspective of institu-
struction of social problems, claims-making tions charged with their management. Pres-
and institutional actors frame disaster defi- idential disaster declarations, which are the
nitions and priorities for ameliorative action. principal vehicle for the provision of disaster
For example, Stallings (1995) uses a construc- aid, are triggered by physical loss assessments
tionist framework to show how, in the virtual and estimates of human needs (e.g., temporary
absence of public concern, the interests of sci- shelter and housing) resulting from disasters,
entists, engineers, government agencies, and although as noted earlier political considera-
political parties converged during the 1970s, tions are also important.
resulting in at least the partial construction On the risk management side, private in-
of earthquakes as a social problem. While surers and reinsurers are far more concerned
characterizing what he calls the “earthquake with their exposure to large and sudden prop-
establishment” as a type of professionalized erty casualty losses than to any other types
social movement, his analysis also emphasizes of losses; for them, what makes an event dis-
the role of government activism in framing astrous is loss to property. The solvency of
the problem—activism generated largely out insurers is highly unlikely to be affected by a
of a concern for the macroeconomic and few hundred or even a few thousand heat wave
national security impacts of large California deaths; in contrast, events like Hurricanes
earthquakes. Andrew, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma represent
More insight into the social construction tangible financial threats.
of disasters comes from cases in which in- There is also the fact that the reduction of
stitutions fail to recognize and respond to losses from heat waves lacks advocates. There
disastrous outcomes resulting from natural is no heat wave establishment that resem-
phenomena. As Klinenberg (2002) showed in bles the earthquake establishment described
Heat Wave, extreme natural events can cause by Stallings. There are no organized coali-
numerous deaths without being defined as dis- tions pressing for solutions to heat hazards,
asters by government, the media, or even disas there are for earthquakes and, more re-
aster researchers themselves. Nearly 800 peo- cently, for wind-related hazards. Earthquake,
ple died in the Chicago heat wave of 1995, as flood, and wind engineering exist as distinct
508 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
academic specialties that focus on extreme Challenges to classic frameworks em-

events, a focus that is lacking in engineering phasizing the centrality of events in the
disciplines concerned with heat. No profes- study of disasters initially came from out-
sional associations exist to specifically address side sociology and outside the United States.
the threat. In short, extreme heat has not yet An edited volume entitled Interpretations of
become an issue capable of generating sus- Calamity (Hewitt 1983), containing contri-
tained claims-making activity. butions mainly from the field of geography
How events are constructed and recon- and from Canada and Europe, constituted the
structed clearly has important consequences first serious effort to challenge event-based
for victims, communities, and societies. The approaches. In the introduction to this vol-
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, re- ume, Hewitt (1983, p. 3) called the domi-
sulted in official disaster declarations—again nant consensus on disasters “the single great-
covering some disaster impacts and some af- est impediment to improvement in both the
fected jurisdictions but not others. The sub- understanding of natural calamities and the
sequent framing of the 9/11 attacks as acts of strategies to alleviate them.” Hewitt argued
war, rather than as disasters or crimes, is a that the dominant social-scientific perspective
topic for extensive analysis in its own right. was itself a social construction that was driven
U.S. society is only beginning to experience more by the priorities of government officials
the consequences of that construction. and institutions, natural scientists, and tech-
nocrats than by theory. He further character-
The broader context: the social produc- ized mainstream disaster research as a disas-
tion of disaster. Classical disaster research ter archipelago that separates disasters from
treats disasters as events that originate in earth the social contexts in which they occur and
and atmospheric systems. Physical events then operates primarily to bolster institutions con-
impinge on the built environment and on so- cerned with the control of nature and human
cial systems. Unless those systems are vulner- societies. Hewitt described this separation as
able, physical events alone do not constitute a convenient fiction supported by prevailing
disasters; an event is not a disaster unless hu- scientistic and technocratic world views.
man beings and social systems are affected in A similar view was articulated in the in-
negative ways. fluential 1994 book At Risk: Natural Hazards,
While explicitly acknowledging the soci- People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters (Blaikie
etal component of disasters and emphasizing et al. 1994). At Risk argued that although
that disasters are social rather than physical events such as hurricanes, floods, and earth-
occurrences, the classic perspective still con- quakes serve as triggers for disaster, disas-
veys the notion that disasters are events— ters themselves originate in social conditions
and events that are recognizable primarily by and processes that may be far removed from
virtue of their relatively sudden onset and the events themselves, such as deforestation, en-
casualties, damage, and disruption they cause. vironmental degradation, factors that encour-
Disasters are characterized as having a begin- age settlement in hazardous areas, poverty and
ning (the period of onset), a middle (the emer- other forms of social inequality, low capacity
gency period), and ultimately an end (when for self-help among subgroups within pop-
social life returns more or less to normal and ulations, and failures in physical and social
when recovery takes place). Overlooked in protective systems. These conditions are pro-
such formulations is the notion that disasters duced in turn by social change at regional, na-
are inherent in the social order itself, or that, tional, and global scales.
put another way, disasters are episodic, fore- Formulations like these challenge main-
seeable manifestations of the broader forces stream research for its failure to consider how
that shape societies. such factors as the actions of states, trends

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
in so-called “development,” and globaliza- of life, property, and community and that af-
tion produce disasters. In this alternative view, fected populations are invariably more gen-
far from constituting sudden ruptures in the erous and helpful than during nondisaster
social order that originate with natural sys- times (Barton 1969, Dynes 1970, Dynes &
tems and that governments and institutions Quarantelli 1971, Drabek 1986). According to
seek to ameliorate, disasters are part of a set this view, conflicts are suspended during disas-
of negative externalities that occur as a con- ters and then reassert themselves later during
sequence of larger political-economic trends the postdisaster recovery period. In spread-
and that must be explained by reference to ing the “good news about disasters” (Taylor
those forces. Newer work supporting this per- 1977), researchers provided a needed cor-
spective focuses on disaster as an inevitable rective to common-sense and official think-

consequence of what Kousky & Zeckhauser ing regarding the social consequences of ex-
(2005) term JARring actions, by which they treme events. At the same time, questions
mean actions that jeopardize assets that are can be raised concerning these claims, even
remote. Such actions include the destruction from the perspective of mainstream research
of coastal wetlands, barrier islands, and other itself. Pioneering researchers argued for a
ecosystem services that absorb the impacts of principle of continuity in the study of dis-
hurricanes and floods, as well as activities that asters, meaning that social behavior and on-
contribute to global warming. A key feature going patterns of change are not altered sig-
of JARring actions is that they create profits nificantly by disaster events (Quarantelli &
for some (industries, development interests) Dynes 1977). The continuity principle im-
in the short term while externalizing costs plies that groups, organizations, and institu-
and other negative impacts to others when tions behave in ways that are consistent with
disasters strike. predisaster patterns or that, even if changes do
Adopting this alternative perspective occur, new patterns will be short-lived. It also
would move sociological research to con- implies continuity between pre- and postdis-
centrate not on calamitous events and their aster social conditions and trends. Following
effects, but rather on the decisions and ac- ethnomethodological reasoning, the structure
tions of government, elites and their financial of the social order should be revealed more
supporters, and global industries and financial clearly during breaching events like disasters
institutions that make disasters inevitable. than during times when social arrangements
As its title indicates, Mileti’s (1999) book are taken for granted.
Disasters by Design directly addresses some Studies on major disasters conducted by
of these issues within the broader context historians, political scientists, and a grow-
of sustainability, arguing that unsustainable ing number of sociologists attest to the fact
development practices eventually have disas- that social divisions and patterns of unequal
trous consequences. Following White, others treatment persist alongside altruism and hero-
have pointed more directly to the role of ism when disasters strike and that in some
state action in designing the disasters of the cases disasters have even been accompanied
future (for a recent example, see Burby 2006 by violent conflict. In the catastrophic 1927
on Hurricane Katrina). Mississippi River flood, for example, because
of the importance of New Orleans as a cen-
Consensus, conflict, or both? Early soci- ter of concentrated wealth, officials made a
ological studies stressed that extreme events conscious decision to blow up levees on the
enhance social cohesiveness and result in the Mississippi River to save the city from be-
emergence of strong altruistic norms. Re- ing flooded. That decision caused adjacent
search accounts emphasized that disasters and poorer parishes to be inundated, result-
generate broad consensus regarding the value ing in extensive property damage and loss of
510 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
life. Although governmental officials, banking wells, looting, committing acts of rape,
ing interests, and other elite groups promised and initiating civil violence—rumors govern-
to compensate victims for their losses, they ment officials allowed to spread and that
reneged on that promise. During the flood- they sometimes even planted. Government-
ing, blacks were ordered by whites not only sanctioned vigilante groups formed not only
to sandbag levees, but also to serve as human in Tokyo but in other parts of Japan and pro-
sandbags by piling on top of one another to ceeded to murder, lynch, rape, and mutilate
keep the levees from overtopping. In some af- ethnic Koreans.
fected areas, blacks were literally reenslaved Manufactured fears of a government over-
during and after the flooding to ensure that throw by both Koreans and other groups con-
they would remain as a cheap agricultural sidered disloyal to the empire also led to
labor force in flooded areas (Barry 1997). the killing of socialists, anarchists, and other
Accounts of heroic behavior following the dissidents. The police and the military did
1906 San Francisco earthquake mask docu- nothing to stem the vigilante violence that
mented instances of vigilante violence, most emerged in the context of the earthquake,
of which were directed against lower-class and and in many cases they were active partici-
minority residents of the city. San Franciscans pants in the slaughter. With martial law in ef-
were given permission to shoot to kill sus- fect, Koreans were confined to concentration
pected looters—directives that were carried camps, ostensibly for their own protection,
out mainly against working- and lower-class and many killings took place in the camps.
disaster victims. After Chinatown residents Interned Koreans were also forced to par-
were forced to flee, Chinatown was looted. ticipate in earthquake recovery efforts and
Fradkin (2005) presents evidence showing were prevented from traveling to Korea be-
that the looters were mainly respectable and cause the Japanese feared that reports of the
well-off residents foraging for china and an- pogrom would inflame the Korean population
tiques, and that law enforcement agencies did (Weiner 1989, 1994; Allen 1996; Ryang 2003).
little to control the looting. Chinatown vic- There is ample additional evidence to sup-
tims were sheltered in segregated camps and port a conflict perspective on disasters. For ex-
were moved to different locations when white ample, following the 1989 Loma Prieta earth-
residents complained about their presence. quake, which caused major damage and social
After the earthquake, some city leaders sought disruption in Santa Cruz County, where the
to relocate Chinatown victims outside the city, earthquake’s epicenter was located, a group
which would have left the Chinatown district of severely affected Latino residents from
ripe for new development. This plan was ef- the town of Watsonville refused to use of-
fectively countered by real estate and devel- ficially designated government shelters and
opment interests that sought to profit from instead set up their own improvised shel-
the reconstruction of Chinatown in its orig- ter in a park to ensure that the distinctive
inal location. Overall, the provision of disas- needs of their community were recognized by
ter aid both reflected and reinforced the city’s agencies providing aid. United Farm Work-
racial, ethnic, and class divisions (Fradkin ers head Cesar Chavez led a demonstration
2005, Bolton 1997, Henderson 2005). calling for restoration of low-income housing.
In Japan, the 1923 Great Kanto (Tokyo) Twenty Bay Area community-based organi-
earthquake was followed immediately by a zations filed a complaint against the Federal
pogrom against Koreans living in Japan in Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
which an estimated 6000 people were mur- discriminating against non-English-speaking
dered (estimates of the number killed vary and low-income earthquake victims (Bolin &
widely). The pogrom was instigated by ru- Stanford 1993). In that same event, which
mors that Koreans were setting fires, poison- damaged facilities for homeless people and

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
affordable housing of the type used by those builders, companies involved in debris clear-
who are at risk of homelessness, government ance, and real estate and banking interests—
agencies went to great lengths to ensure that and now military contractors. Referring to the
the predisaster homeless did not benefit from manner in which capitalist systems profit from
aid programs targeting those left homeless by the creative destruction of disasters, Rozario
the earthquake (Phillips 1998). (2001, p. 81) observes that “[o]ne of the pri-
Certainly the picture emerging from mary benefits of a calamity is that it de-
Hurricane Katrina is anything but sup- stroys urban environments and thereby liber-
portive of the good news theme. Conflict ates and recycles capital that has ‘ossified’ in
was evident during the Katrina disaster, as fixed structures, thus clearing space for new
African American hurricane victims in New development and opening up new investment
Orleans were characterized as rampaging opportunities.” Taking advantage of the win-
thugs, shoot-to-kill orders were issued in re- dow of opportunity afforded by Katrina, gam-
sponse to (erroneous) claims of rampant law- ing interests in Biloxi moved immediately to
lessness, and New Orleans residents seeking obtain permission to rebuild casinos on land,
refuge in nearby communities were turned rather than returning to the predisaster river-
back at gunpoint. Conflict, rather than co- boat gambling pattern that proved so vulnera-
operation, also characterized relations among ble to hurricanes. Permission was granted, and
different levels of government. At the height massive casinos are now under construction.
of the emergency, rumors and partisan poli- In New Orleans, one politician noted thank-
tics governed official decisions and actions in fully that the hurricane took care of the low-
ways that were detrimental to the overall re- income housing problem, and there is contin-
sponse effort (Tierney et al. 2006, Cooper & ual talk of rebuilding the city with a smaller
Block 2006, Brinkley 2006). footprint—a code word for the exclusion of
Particularly in light of Katrina, the good the poor and the development of residential
news perspective must now be modified to dwelling units for the affluent.
explicitly acknowledge that disasters are oc- In some cases, disasters can undermine
casions that can intensify both social solidar- the legitimacy of governments and elites. In
ity and social conflict and that the assump- the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, for ex-
tion that disasters constitute consensus crises ample, rapid and effective self-help measures
is itself a social construction. After Katrina, undertaken by victims themselves stood in
it is clear that even as disasters set in mo- stark contrast to the sluggish governmental
tion large-scale prosocial action on the part of response. Evidence of the efficacy of public
community residents and civil society institu- mobilization following the earthquake, com-
tions, they are also accompanied by official ef- pared with the ineptitude of the state, was one
forts to discourage disorderly behavior on the factor that led to successful challenges to the
part of the public and by public and govern- supremacy of the Institutional Revolutionary
mental efforts to maintain social distinctions Party (PRI). The diversion of disaster relief
and power inequities. funds by the kleptocratic Somoza regime fol-
Disasters generate conflict in part be- lowing the 1972 Managua, Nicaragua, earth-
cause they open windows of opportunity quake helped pave the way for a Sandinista
that competing interests can exploit for their victory in 1979 (Olson & Drury 1997, Olson
advantage. Although disasters generally do 2000).
not provide economic benefits to commu- With respect to state-society relations, dis-
nities or societies over time, they do pro- asters generate both cooperative and adver-
vide direct benefits to some economic sectors, sarial forms of collective behavior. In Turkey
particularly private interests concerned with following the 1999 Marmara earthquake, in
response and recovery, such as developers, which an estimated 17,400 people lost their
512 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
lives, grass-roots groups, nongovernmental ters develop out of a need on the part of those
organizations, and the general public were in power to bolster the social order, protect
intensely involved in providing assistance to capital, maintain public confidence in existing
victims, again in the face of governmental ruling relations, and contain potential opposi-
incompetence and mismanagement. While tional actions. Even activities associated with
collaborating with governmental agencies, immediate disaster responses, such as institut-
many groups were openly critical of the state’s ing security measures and sheltering victims,
incompetence in disaster response and recov- reproduce social inequities while seeking to
ery ( Jalali 2002). In addition, very soon after avoid potential crises of legitimacy. Similarly,
the Marmara disaster, protests broke out tar- others have called attention to the importance
geting owners and builders of structures that of policing practices, in the Foucauldian sense,
had collapsed during the earthquake owing as a key element in institutional responses to
to substandard construction methods. Pub- disaster (Horlick-Jones 1995, Hewitt 1998).
lic anger was also directed at governmental There was little response at the time to
entities that were complicit in allowing such Stallings’s call for a new conceptual frame-
projects to go forward. One research report work recognizing the ubiquity of conflict
(Green 2005) argues that in Turkey long- in disasters. Nonetheless, like construction-
standing patterns of governmental action (and ism, conflict perspectives on disasters have
inaction) with respect to land-use and building gradually been incorporated into sociological
code enforcement constituted organizational scholarship in the field, but without seriously
deviance on a large scale and contributed challenging the classic paradigm. But here
to the earthquake’s high death toll, a theme again, Katrina may well be the grand anomaly
that was taken up in media coverage of the that signals a paradigm shift in disaster
earthquake. sociology.
Similarly, in the United States, the 9/11
attacks and Hurricane Katrina represented Other voices, other experiences. Another
major turning points with respect to the le- example of the field’s insularity is its treat-
gitimacy and credibility of high-level government of gender. It would be inaccurate to ar-
mental officials. Indeed, the ability to respond gue that gender-related concepts were never
effectively to large natural disasters, terror- addressed in earlier scholarly work on dis-
ist threats, and actual acts of terrorism is the asters. However, when it did appear, gender
fulcrum on which the Bush administration’s was mainly used as a variable in quantitative
political power now balances. analyses or addressed in studies on families in
Nearly 20 years ago, Stallings (1988, disaster. For example, studies typically cen-
p. 569) observed that in constructing the good tered on gender roles as factors influencing
news paradigm, “[s]ocial scientists have been responses to disasters, such as warning re-
creating something of a myth of disasters of sponses and helping behavior (Drabek 1986,
their own,” adding that “[t]his bias continues Wenger & James 1994). Work exploring the
to foreclose our ability to examine ways in broader significance of gender in disasters did
which aspects of social structure and human not begin to appear until decades after the
agency rather than ‘nature’ alone influence the emergence of the second wave of feminism
probability, severity and consequences of nat- in the United States and after the develop-
ural disasters.” Stallings advanced a conflict ment of gender as a sociological specialty. Al-
theory of disasters that recognizes the interest though scholars in other parts of the world,
of the state in ensuring the smooth operation particularly Latin America, have explored the
of societal institutions in the face of disrup- multiple ways in which gender structures ex-
tion. According to this view, patterns previ- periences with respect to hazards and disas-
ously seen as indicative of consensus in disasters, until recently U.S. researchers continued

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
to carry out gender-blind studies (Enarson & the race-as-a-variable/class-as-a-variable ap-

Meyreles 2004). proach. Numerous quantitative studies have
The 1990s decade and the early twenty- looked at the influence of such variables
first century represent the first period in on the capacity to undertake self-protective
which U.S. sociologists interested specifically measures, such as predisaster preparedness
in gender became involved in systematic re- and emergency evacuation, as well as on
search on disasters. Significant progress has disaster impacts, responses, and recovery-
been made in exploring how gender, com- related outcomes (for reviews, see Tierney
bined with other dimensions of stratification, et al. 2001, Tierney 2005, Natl. Res. Counc.
such as race and class, shape disaster vulner- 2006). New research is focusing to a greater
ability and life experiences both during and degree on documenting disaster experiences
following disasters. For example, the differ- as seen through the eyes of poor and mi-
ent experiences of women and men affected nority disaster victims and on linking those
by disaster were highlighted in books such as experiences to broader structural forces.

Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and the So- Far from being occasions in which social
ciology of Disaster (Peacock et al. 1997), The inequities are erased, disasters expose and of-
Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s ten magnify those inequities. As Klinenberg
Eyes (Enarson & Morrow 1998a—see espe- (2002) observed with respect to heat waves,
cially Fothergill 1998 in that volume), and how people die in extreme events reflects
Heads Above Water: Gender, Class, and Fam- how they live. In the 1995 Chicago heat
ily in the Grand Forks Flood (Fothergill 2004). wave, that meant that mortality was dispro-
As these and other studies show, gender is portionately high among elderly persons liv-
a factor in vulnerability to death and in- ing alone in blighted neighborhoods, whose
jury, risk perception and risk-reduction be- social networks were weak, and who chose
havior, decision-making authority regarding to stay indoors, in part out of fear of crime.
self-protective measures such as evacuation, In the catastrophic Great Sumatra earth-
the financial and emotional burdens associ- quake and Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004,
ated with disaster recovery, and ways of cop- women perished at higher rates than men
ing with those burdens (for elaborations on and were accorded unequal treatment follow-
these themes, see Bolin et al. 1998, Enarson ing the disaster. Research on tsunami mor-
& Fordham 2001, Morrow & Phillips 1999, tality in Sri Lanka indicates that women’s
Fothergill 2003, Enarson 2005). At the same deaths were linked to gender-based social
time, scholarship has moved beyond essen- control practices. Women’s domestic chores
tialist discourses that characterize women as confined them to their homes on the morn-
invariably helpless and vulnerable in disasters ing of the tsunami, which meant that they
(Bolin et al. 1998) by showing how, through were less likely than men to see the precur-
their knowledge, organizing skills, social net- sors of the tsunami and the waves that fol-
works, and commitment to family and com- lowed. Because of cultural norms for proper
munity, women actively participate in disaster womanly demeanor and dress in Sri Lanka,
preparedness, response, and recovery efforts women were less likely than men to know
(Neal & Phillips 1990; Enarson & Morrow how to swim, and when they were trapped
1998b; Enarson 2000, 2002). by the tsunami waves, their traditional gar-
The field has also been very slow to ments weighed them down. After the tsunami,
recognize race and class as topics for socio- head-of-household rules governing eligibility
logical investigation. This is not to say that for assistance again put women at a disadvan-
race and class have been entirely ignored in tage, and laws and traditions regarding inher-
mainstream sociological disaster research, itance and property ownership also limited
but most studies have consistently followed women’s ability to acquire assets necessary
514 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
for recovery (Ariyabandu 2006). As these ex- on such questions as whether pre-event plan-
amples show, predisaster inequities express ning led to more effective disaster responses
themselves when disasters occur, and patterns on the part of agencies and whether disaster-
of mortality, morbidity, loss, displacement, management organizations undergo change
and recovery are inextricably linked to the so- as a consequence of disaster experience.
cial contexts in which disasters occur. In keeping with the field’s fundamental
focus on disaster-related collective behav-
ior, researchers did acknowledge the impor-
Blind Spots: Influences from Within tance of emergent groups in disaster response
and Outside the Field (Stallings & Quarantelli 1985, Drabek &
Uncritical focus on official institutional McEntire 2002). Yet here again the empha-
responses. Why did it take so long for the sis was largely on how these newly formed
field of disaster research to begin to incor- groups either complemented or filled gaps in
porate fundamental sociological concepts the official disaster response. Less emphasis
like gender, class, and race into its research was placed on broader social contexts that fa-
agenda? How is it that the disaster-related cilitate group emergence or on the role of
experiences of diverse groups received so such groups in socially constructing disaster-
little emphasis? Answers to these questions related needs (for exceptions, see Taylor 1976,
can be found in part in the history of the Simile 1995)
field itself. I noted earlier that research on
disasters had its origins in governmental Gender, race, and disaster research. Clas-
concerns regarding nuclear war and the po- sic disaster research was a highly gendered
tential reactions of a seemingly homogeneous activity. All of the first generation of dis-
public. Once researchers had addressed aster researchers were men. Women came
those types of issues, they began focusing into the field (as graduate students) in the
primarily on the activities of organizations 1970s. Key informants and other intervie-
charged with managing disasters at the local wees in field studies were overwhelmingly
community level. While organizations such male. Particularly in the early decades of disas-
as the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and ter research, civil defense directors generally
other faith-based entities were studied, much came from military backgrounds. Other key
greater emphasis was placed on the disaster response organizations, such as fire and po-
operations of public organizations such as lice departments, are organized along quasi-
civil defense and public safety agencies, military lines. By and large, the organizations
hospitals and emergency medical service singled out for study were themselves strongly
providers (see, for example, two special issues gendered (Acker 1990). In addition, for at least
of the American Behavioral Scientist, Volumes its first two decades, the field seems to have
13 and 16, that were devoted to research been guided by an implicit assumption that
on fire departments, police departments, studying disasters was not women’s work and
and other crisis-relevant agencies during that males were simply better able to cope
disasters and episodes of civil unrest). Even with the hardships of postdisaster fieldwork
while noting the pitfalls of adopting what and the challenges of conducting research in
they termed a command-post point of view male-dominated organizations. Taking these
in studying disasters, researchers did just factors into account, it is perhaps understand-
that in privileging the disaster narratives of able that gender took so long to emerge as
official organizational informants over those a focus for research (for more discussion and
of victims and community-based groups. examples, see Tierney 2002).
Disasters were studied through the lens of The same general pattern holds with re-
governmental concerns, as research focused spect to race and ethnicity. Even now, the

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
core disaster research workforce is remarkably prior to the terrorist attacks of 2001. This
lacking in diversity. In the past, few stud- particular NSF program is the reason why
ies focused explicitly on race, ethnicity, or we know as much as we do about the societal
class in disasters. Interest in disasters and so- dimensions of extreme events.
cial inequality has reached a new peak fol- At the same time, research priorities have
lowing Katrina, and it is tempting to assume generally centered on specific problems and
that because of Katrina the situation will im- policy issues and have been driven by both ma-
prove. However, given past trends in the field, jor disaster events and trends in basic science
that may not be the case. Although disas- and engineering, as reflected in NSF program
ter events do attract new researchers to the priorities. For example, funding for sociolog-
field, including scholars whose lives have been ical research on disasters has followed agency
touched by disaster, those individuals seldom priorities regarding the value of multidisci-
become career researchers (Natl. Res. Counc. plinary and interdisciplinary research. Partic-
2006). ularly in the past ten years, NSF funding op-

portunities for sociologists and other social
Applied concerns and research sponsor- scientists who study disasters have expanded
ship. Advances have also been hampered primarily through multidisciplinary initiatives
by the field’s limited theoretical diversity such as the NSF earthquake engineering and
and problem-focused nature. Sociological re- research centers and more recently the Hu-
search on disasters in the United States has re- man and Social Dynamics Program. These
mained largely isolated from major theoretical programs—which have been supported at
developments in sociology (except see Kreps the level of tens of millions of dollars—
1989, Kreps & Bosworth 1993). Researchers have required sociologists to collaborate with
have often been more concerned with solving researchers from other fields, including in
problems that are important for governmen- particular the engineering disciplines.
tal institutions and practitioners than with ad- This is not to say that researchers sup-
vancing theory. Studies have yielded a large ported through problem-focused and multi-
number of sound empirical generalizations disciplinary funding initiatives have not pro-
but by and large have remained unlinked to duced good sociology, because they clearly
existing general theory. have. Rather, it is more accurate to say
There are in fact few incentives for the- that funding programs, especially multidisci-
oretically based disaster social sciences and plinary ones, have not encouraged the growth
few costs associated with conducting basic of theory and discipline-based knowledge
empirical work. To some extent, the lack of and that funding priorities have been shaped
concern with theory development is tied to by problem definitions developed largely
sources of funding for disaster research. Most by non–social scientists. Again, however, it
large-scale sociological research on disasters, should be stressed that NSF has contributed
including theoretically based research, has more than any other agency to the develop-
been supported by the NSF Engineering ment of sociological research on disasters, and
Directorate through funding programs to social science research on disasters more
established under the National Earthquake generally, simply by supporting disaster re-
Hazards Reduction Act, which was passed in search when other agencies only rarely did
the mid-1970s. This source of funding was so (for discussions on those contributions, see
and continues to be extremely important for Natl. Res. Counc. 2006).
the growth of the field, especially in light of
the fact that other branches of the NSF and Size and priorities of the research com-
other funding agencies showed little interest munity. Disaster research is a very small spe-
in the societal aspects of extreme events cialty field that has not been well integrated
516 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
with mainstream sociology. Along with attended by professional emergency man-

geographers, sociologists are well represented agers, testifying before Congress, serving on
in the core group of disaster researchers, National Academies committees and other
but still they only number in the dozens. advisory committees, and developing train-
The number of core disaster researchers from ing and educational courses such as those of-
all social sciences combined is estimated at fered by FEMA’s Emergency Management
around 200 (Natl. Res. Counc. 2006). Despite Institute and its Higher Education Project.
the fact that a number of well-known and re- Disaster sociology is no different from other
spected sociologists work in the area, the field more applied sociological fields in this respect.
itself lacks visibility. Although disaster soci- However, because the field is so small, these
ologists do occasionally publish in top ech- activities divert researchers’ efforts from basic
elon and regional sociological journals, their research and disciplinary contributions.
work appears much more frequently in multi- At the same time, the broader field has
disciplinary extreme-event-oriented publica- essentially ignored disaster research. With a

tions such as the International Journal of Mass few notable exceptions such as the University
Emergencies and Disasters (the official jour- of Delaware, which has developed an under-
nal of the International Sociological Asso- graduate sociology concentration in disaster
ciation’s Research Committee on Disasters, research, very few sociology departments of-
which is itself multidisciplinary), Disasters, the fer courses on disasters and hazards, nor do so-
Natural Hazards Review, the Journal of Con- ciology departments seek to hire disaster spe-
tingencies and Crisis Management, and Natural cialists. Prior to the occurrence of Hurricane
Hazards. Katrina, annual meetings of the ASA and
I have already noted that funding-related other sociological societies offered few formal
forces pressure sociologists toward multi- sessions on disasters and disaster-related
and interdisciplinary activities. This particu- topics.
lar style of research has understandably led As a direct result of the terrorist attacks
disaster sociologists to devote considerable of 2001, there has been a dramatic growth
time and effort to participating in conferences in college and university programs focusing
and workshops outside sociology, coauthoring on homeland security, crisis and emergency
publications with nonsociologists, and other management, and related topics. However,
nondiscipline-based activities. The effects of the vast majority of those programs is housed
these collaborative activities are positive in in public administration, engineering, geog-
many ways, both because social science dis- raphy, and urban planning units, rather than
aster scholarship must be accompanied by an in sociology departments. Only one sociol-
understanding of the physical and engineering ogy program in the United States (at North
aspects of the phenomena under study and be- Dakota State University) offers undergradu-
cause sociological concepts and research ap- ate, MA, and PhD concentrations in emer-
proaches add value to multidisciplinary ef- gency management.
forts. At the same time, the transaction costs Stallings observes that in some ways dis-
associated with cross-disciplinary collabora- aster research has been a victim of its own
tions can be high, and discipline-oriented success in that research has led to solid em-
scholarship may suffer. pirical generalizations and a variety of theory
The strongly applied nature of the field development efforts. At the same time, he also
also leads core disaster sociologists to be- notes that disaster sociology is
come involved in knowledge-transfer and
practitioner- and policy-oriented activities, as trapped somewhere between its empirical
opposed to pure research. Contributions in findings on the one hand and theoretical
these areas include speaking at conferences concerns of the discipline on the other.

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
Having ceased to be a means to an end (the Bolin & Stanford (1998, pp. 7–8) observe
development of general sociological theory), that
the sociology of disaster is littered with
social landscapes and human settlements are
theories of the middle range. There are the-
best understood as dialectical expressions of
ories about how organizations adapt, about
human agency in the structural context of a
how individuals process warnings, about
political economy. If we extend that thinking
how communities recover, and so forth.
to disasters, then landscapes, urban or ru-
These are “stand alone” theories. Integrat-
ral, cannot be adequately understood as sim-
ing them with general sociological the-
ple stages upon which disasters inscribe their
ory has proven difficult (Stallings 1998,
impacts . . . . Urban earthquakes and the dis-

p. 136).
asters that follow, are best grasped as part
of a continuous dynamic process, a new fac-
AT THE CROSSROADS: tor interjected seismically into the ongoing

ADVANCING THEORY shaping and reshaping of societies and the
AND RESEARCH spaces they occupy.
Discussions so far have centered on the

change-resistant nature of the field of disaster Challenging mainstream views, Bolin &
sociology and have emphasized the need to Stanford (1998, p. 8) go on to say that
incorporate constructivist, conflict, and social
[t]he implications of understanding ‘na-
inequality perspectives. Others have stressed
ture’ and human landscapes as social
the importance of adopting a more strongly
productions and material expressions of
interpretive stance in the study of disaster
political-economic forces have gone largely
(Kroll-Smith & Gunter 1998). Still others ar-
unnoticed in the US disaster response liter-
gue for the importance of Marxian and crit-
ature . . . . The preference there appears to
ical analysis. For example, although disasters
treat the setting as a given, a routinely func-
continue to be described as unexpected and
tioning organized ‘system’ without a history
nonroutine social events (see Kreps 1998),
or social dynamics apart from what the dis-
many disaster scholars now argue that, far
aster itself originally produced.
from being nonroutine, disasters should be
understood as normal, common occurrences Similarly, other researchers (Ali 2002) ar-
that reflect the characteristics of the soci- gue for analyzing disasters within the con-
eties in which they occur—characteristics that text of the political economy of place (Logan
include industrialization, urbanization, glob- & Molotch 1987) in which communities are
alization, legacies of colonialism, political- shaped by growth machine politics and con-
economic forces, and mechanisms of con- tinual pressure for land development profits.
trol exercised over both the environment and As shown here, there are already signif-
civil society (Hewitt 1998; Oliver-Smith 1994, icant indications that the field is moving in
1998; Davis 1998; Pellig 2003). new directions. In addition to influencing the
In line with this trend, political ecology thinking of disaster researchers, recent dis-
theory and Marxian perspectives on place, asters like Katrina are attracting sociologists
space, and environment are beginning to who had formerly not worked in the disaster
have an influence on sociological disaster area. Ideally, their research will bring new in-
studies. In their research on Hurricane An- sights from other sociological specialties and
drew, Peacock and his collaborators (1997) encourage theoretical diversity. Again, how-
explicitly adopted a perspective they termed ever, the impact of their research findings will
socio-political ecology. Similarly, writing ultimately rest on their continued commit-
about earthquakes and disasters in general, ment to disaster research.
518 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
Disaster research can be linked with disasters, as opposed to technological disas-

any number of sociological specialties and ters and environmental degradation. This is
theoretical orientations; the possibilities are clearly an area to which disaster sociology can
endless. However, perhaps the most logical contribute.
initial strategy is to develop more productive The lack of closer ties between disas-
interchanges with close neighbors—that is, ter researchers and sociologists who study
with other specialties that explore social risks and accidents in complex technologi-
phenomena that resemble or overlap with cal and organizational systems is also baf-
disasters. Chief among these specialties are fling. Landmark publications such as Normal
the study of risk, organizational research on Accidents (Perrow 1984) and The Challenger
accidents and disasters, and environmental Launch Decision (Vaughan 1996) contain nu-
sociology. This is not a call for more middle merous valuable insights that by and large
range theory; rather, it is a call for extensive have yet to be applied to nontechnological dis-
efforts to overcome the conceptual gerry- asters. Vaughan (1999) discussed disasters as
mandering that has hampered larger-scale one manifestation of the dark side of organiza-
theory development. tions, but her examples were limited to stud-
The study of risk is itself a multidisci- ies undertaken by organizational researchers,
plinary field that focuses on disaster-relevant and they focused mainly on accidents and dis-
topics such as risk perception, the social asters involving complex hazardous technolo-
construction and social amplification of risk, gies, as opposed to extreme events in gen-
risk assessment, and risk management, both eral. At the same time, it is clear that the
in specific societies and in cross-societal and three factors she identified as contributors to
comparative contexts. Substantive findings various forms of organizational deviance—
from these topical areas have already been organizational environments, organizational
incorporated into disaster research. But characteristics, and cognition and choice—
it is even more important to link disaster apply just as well to the study of disasters in
sociology with more general theoretical for- general as to those stemming from risky tech-
mulations on risk developed by sociologists nologies. To appreciate the relevance of this
such as Luhmann (1993) and Beck (1992, framework, one need only contemplate the in-
1995, 1999) concerning risk in contemporary stitutional, organizational and cognitive fac-
society and the world system. Such schol- tors that produced the Katrina debacle.
arship emphasizes the role of decisions in In a society of organizations (Perrow
the creation of risk, the political-economic 1991), the study of disasters must include a fo-
dimensions of risk, varieties and purposes cus on organizational and institutional struc-
of risk-related discourses, and the ways in tures, cultures, actions—and failures. Models
which modern industrial societies ultimately of this type of research include work by Clarke
produce risks as they act upon nature and (1989, 1999) and Beamish (2000, 2002), who
the social order. Beck in particular highlights have focused their attentions on the impor-
the manner in which the very institutions tance of organizational agendas, spheres of
charged with managing peril cause risks to responsibility, anarchies, secrecy, and garbage
expand, even as they dodge accountability cans in the genesis of disasters. Here again,
and seek to control risk-related knowledge there is no reason to analyze naturally caused
and discourses (see, for example, discussions events and chronic and acute technologi-
on organized irresponsibility in Beck 1999). cal hazards differently; by now, sociologists
Interestingly, despite their contributions to should have moved beyond this kind of es-
what might be termed a unitary theory of risk, sentialist thinking.
neither Luhmann nor Beck has linked risk Finally, connections between disaster re-
theory with social science research on natural search and environmental sociology are

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
vital and need to be strengthened. Disas- ilarly, the environmental justice perspective
ter researchers have long studied environ- developed out of a concern with social in-
mental and technological disasters alongside equities in exposure to chronic toxic hazards
events triggered by natural agents, but they and hazardous facilities. However, differen-
have generally done so from the perspective tial vulnerability to hazards and disasters of
of classic event-based disaster sociology. A all types—including so-called natural ones—
number of environmental sociologists study can also be analyzed in environmental jus-
hazards and disasters, but they tend to spe- tice terms. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, nei-
cialize in chronic and acute manifestations ther environmental sociologists nor disaster
of hazardous technologies and on slow-onset researchers had fully recognized those com-
forms of environmental degradation (Kroll- monalities. The connections are clear, but
Smith & Couch 1990, Couch & Kroll-Smith they have been obscured by formulations that
1991, Mazur 1998). Yet there is no theo- separate disasters from the broader study of
retical reason why disasters should be stud- human-environment interactions.

ied independently of other dimensions of the Emphasizing the need for theoretical con-
environment or that the same explanatory vergence between environmental sociology
frameworks should not be applied in both and the study of natural resources, Rosa &
subfields. The lack of stronger linkages is Machlis (2002) quote a samurai proverb that
the result of the ways the two specialties says “it’s a bad thing to make one thing into
developed. two.” The same might be said for environ-
Disasters are as much examples of the mental sociology and disaster research. Disas-
“environmental consequences of modernity” ters can be traced either directly or indirectly
(York et al. 2003) as are more chronic envi- to the manner in which societies organize
ronmental problems. JARring events can in- their interactions with nature, and the more
clude both ecological damage and disasters of these linkages become evident through re-
all types. Marxian perspectives on the politi- search on disasters and the environment, the
cal economy of the environment, place, and less justification there is for these two specialty
space (Foster 1994, 1999, 2005; O’Connor areas to remain distinct.
1998) and the concept of the treadmill of Reflecting critically on the field’s lack
production (Schnaiberg 1980, Schnaiberg & of concern with broader theoretical issues,
Gould 1994, Gould et al. 2004) provide sig- Quarantelli (2005, p. 330) has argued that
nificant insights into the origins of disaster. “[w]e will do better disaster studies by
Regimes of production and accumulation de- being better sociologists.” This review has
plete and destroy ecosystems, cause environ- highlighted steps disaster scholars must take
mental disasters, and make communities and in order to bring sociology back in. Disaster
populations more vulnerable in the face of researchers must stop organizing their in-
all types of environmental extremes. Overde- quiries around problems that are meaningful
velopment in flood plains and coastal areas, primarily to the institutions charged with
lax building codes and poor code enforce- managing disasters and instead concentrate
ment, shoddy building practices, speculation on problems that are meaningful to the
in land and construction, reliance on techno- discipline. They must integrate the study
logical fixes, efforts to control rather than live of disasters with core sociological concerns,
with nature, and the relegation of the most such as social inequality, societal diversity,
vulnerable populations to the most vulnera- and social change. They must overcome
ble locations—activities that design the disas- their tendency to build up knowledge one
ters of the future—are a reflection of growth disaster at a time and focus more on what
machine politics and the use of places and disasters and environmental crises of all types
spaces for short-term economic gains. Sim- have in common with respect to origins,
520 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
dynamics, and outcomes. And they must ular those concerned with risk, organizations
locate the study of disasters within broader and institutions, and society-environment
theoretical frameworks, including in partic- interactions.
LITERATURE CITED
Acker J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gend. Soc. 4:139–58
Ali SH. 2002. Disaster and the political economy of recycling: toxic fire in an industrial city.
Soc. Probl. 49:129–49
Allen JM. 1996. The price of identity: the 1923 Kanto earthquake and its aftermath. Korean
Stud. 20:64–93
Ariyabandu MM. 2006. Gender issues in recovery from the December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami: the case of Sri Lanka. Earthq. Spectra 22:S759–75
Barry JM. 1997. Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America.
New York: Simon & Schuster
Barton AH. 1969. Communities in Disaster: A Sociological Analysis of Collective Stress. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday
Beamish TD. 2000. Silent Spill: The Organization of an Industrial Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press
Beamish TD. 2002. Waiting for crisis: regulatory inaction and ineptitude and the Guadalupe
Dunes oil spill. Soc. Probl. 49:150–77
Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage
Beck U. 1995. Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of the Risk Society. Atlantic Highlands,
NJ: Humanities
Beck U. 1999. World Risk Society. Oxford: Blackwell
Biel S, ed. 2001. American Disasters. New York: N. Y. Univ. Press
Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B. 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability
and Disasters. New York: Routledge
Bolin R, Jackson M, Crist A. 1998. Gender inequality, vulnerability, and disaster: issues in
theory and research. See Enarson & Morrow 1998a, pp. 27–44
Bolin RC, Stanford LM. 1993. Emergency sheltering and housing of earthquake victims: the
case of Santa Cruz County. In The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17,
1989—Public Response, ed. PA Bolton, pp. B43–50. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1553B.
Washington, DC: USGPO
Bolin RC, Stanford LM. 1998. The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster. London:
Routledge
Bolton M. 1997. Recovery for whom? Social conflict after the San Francisco earthquake and fire,
1906–1915. PhD thesis. Univ. Calif., Davis
Brinkley D. 2006. The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf
Coast. New York: HarperCollins
Burby RJ. 2006. Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: bringing
about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
604:171–91
Burton IR, Kates RW, White GF. 1978. The Environment as Hazard. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press
Clarke L. 1989. Acceptable Risk? Making Decisions in a Toxic Environment. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Clarke L. 1999. Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
Cooper C, Block R. 2006. Disaster: Hurricane Katrina and the Failure of Homeland Security. New
York: Times Books/Holt
Couch SR, Kroll-Smith JS, eds. 1991. Communities at Risk: Collective Responses to Technological
Hazards. New York: Lang
Cutter SL. 2005. The geography of social vulnerability: race, class, and catastrophe. Un-
derstanding Katrina: Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Soc. Sci. Res. Counc. http://
understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/
Davis M. 1998. Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. New York:
Metropolitan Books
Downton MW, Pielke RA Jr. 2001. Discretion without accountability: politics, flood damage,
and climate. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2:157–66

Drabek TE. 1986. Human System Responses to Disaster. New York: Springer-Verlag
Drabek TE, McEntire DA. 2002. Emergent phenomena and multiorganizational coordination
in disasters: lessons from the research literature. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 20:197–224
Dynes RR. 1970. Organized Behavior in Disaster. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
Dynes RR. 2000. The dialogue between Voltaire and Rousseau on the Lisbon earthquake: the
emergence of a social science view. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 18:97–115
Dynes RR, Quarantelli EL. 1971. The absence of community conflict in the early phases of
natural disaster. In Conflict Resolution: Contributions of the Behavioral Sciences, ed. CG Smith,
pp. 200–4. South Bend, IN: Univ. Notre Dame Press
Enarson E. 2000. “We will make meaning out of this”: women’s cultural responses to the Red
River Valley flood. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 18:39–62
Enarson E. 2002. Environmental management and mitigation of natural disasters: a gender perspec-
tive. Presented at UN Comm. Status Women, Mar. 4–15, New York
Enarson E. 2005. Women and girls last? Averting the second post-Katrina disaster. Un-
derstanding Katrina: Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Soc. Sci. Res. Counc. http://
understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Enarson/
Enarson E, Fordham M. 2001. From women’s needs to women’s rights in disasters. Environ.
Hazards 3:133–36
Enarson E, Meyreles L. 2004. International perspectives on gender and disaster: differences
and possibilities. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 24:49–93
Enarson E, Morrow BH, eds. 1998a. The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes.
Westport, CT: Praeger
Enarson E, Morrow BH. 1998b. Women will rebuild Miami: a case study of feminist response
to disaster. See Enarson & Morrow 1998a, pp. 185–99
Erikson KT. 1976. Everything in Its Path: Destruction of Community in the Buffalo Creek Flood.
New York: Simon & Schuster
Erikson KT. 1994. A New Species of Trouble: Explorations in Disaster, Trauma, and Community.
New York: Norton
Foster JB. 1994. The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the Environment. New York:
Mon. Rev. Press
Foster JB. 1999. Marx’s theory of the metabolic rift: classical foundations for environmental
sociology. Am. J. Sociol. 105:366–405
Foster JB. 2005. The treadmill of accumulation: Schnaiberg’s environment and Marxian polit-
ical economy. Organ. Environ. 18:7–18
Fothergill A. 1998. The neglect of gender in disaster work: an overview of the literature. See
Enarson & Morrow 1998a, pp. 11–25
Fothergill A. 2003. The stigma of charity: gender, class, and disaster assistance. Sociol. Q.
44:659–80
522 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
Fothergill A. 2004. Heads Above Water: Gender, Class, and Family in the Grand Forks Flood. Albany:
SUNY Press
Fradkin P. 2005. The Great Earthquake and Firestorms of 1906: How San Francisco Nearly Destroyed
Itself. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Fritz CE. 1961. Disasters. In Contemporary Social Problems, ed. RK Merton, RA Nisbet,
pp. 651–94. New York: Harcourt
Fritz CE, Marks E. 1954. The NORC studies of human behavior in disaster. J. Soc. Sci. Issues
10:26–41
Geschwind CH. 1996. Earthquakes and their interpretation: the campaign for seismic safety in
California, 1906–1933. PhD thesis. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 255 pp.
Gould KA, Pellow DN, Schnaiberg A. 2004. Interrogating the treadmill of production: ev-
erything you wanted to know about the treadmill but were afraid to ask. Organ. Environ.
17:296–16
Green P. 2005. Disaster by design: corruption, construction, and catastrophe. Br. J. Criminol.
45:528–46
Hansen G, Condon E. 1989. Denial of Disaster: The Untold Story and Photographs of the San
Francisco Earthquake and Fire of 1906. San Francisco: Cameron
Henderson AD. 2005. Reconstructing home: gender, disaster relief, and social life after the San
Francisco earthquake and fire, 1906–1915. PhD thesis. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA.
278 pp.
Hewitt K, ed. 1983. Interpretations of Calamity: From the Viewpoint of Human Ecology. Boston:
Allen & Unwin
Hewitt K. 1998. Excluded perspectives in the social construction of disaster. See Quarantelli
1998, pp. 75–91
Horlick-Jones T. 1995. Modern disasters as outrage and betrayal. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters
13:305–15
Jalali R. 2002. Civil society and the state: Turkey and the earthquake. Disasters 26:120–39
Janis IL. 1951. Air War and Emotional Stress: Psychological Studies of Bombing and Civil Defense.
Santa Monica: RAND
Klinenberg E. 2002. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Kousky C, Zeckhauser R. 2005. JARring actions that fuel the floods. In On Risk and Disas-
ter: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina, ed. RJ Daniels, DF Kettl, H Kunreuther, pp. 59–73.
Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Kreps GA. 1989. Social Structure and Disaster. Newark: Univ. Delaware Press
Kreps GA. 1998. Disaster as systemic event and social catalyst. See Quarantelli 1998, pp. 31–55
Kreps GA, Bosworth SL. 1993. Disaster, organizing, and role enactment: a structural approach.
Am. J. Sociol. 99:428–63
Kroll-Smith JS, Couch SR. 1990. The Real Disaster Is Above Ground: A Mine Fire and Social
Conflict. Lexington: Univ. Press Kentucky
Kroll-Smith S, Gunter V. 1998. Legislators, interpreters, and disasters: the importance of how
as well as what is a disaster. See Quarantelli 1998, pp. 160–76
Logan JR, Molotch HL. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Luhmann N. 1993. Risk: A Sociological Theory. New York: Walter de Gruyter
Mazur A. 1998. A Hazardous Inquiry: The Roshamon Effect at Love Canal. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
Mileti DS. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States.
Washington, DC: Joseph Henry

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
Morrow BH, Phillips BD, eds. 1999. Special issue: women and disasters. Int. J. Mass Emerg.
Disasters 17:1
Natl. Res. Counc. 2006. Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions.
Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Neal DM, Phillips BD. 1990. Female-dominated local social movement organizations in dis-
aster threat situations. In Women and Social Protest, ed. G West, R Blumberg, pp. 243–55.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press
O’Connor J. 1998. Natural Causes. New York: Guilford
Oliver-Smith A. 1994. Peru’s five hundred year earthquake: vulnerability in historical context.
In Disasters, Development, and Environment, ed. A Varley, pp. 31–48. London: Wiley
Oliver-Smith A. 1998. Global changes and the definition of disaster. See Quarantelli 1998,
pp. 177–94
Olson RS. 2000. Toward a politics of disasters: losses, values, agendas, and blame. Int. J. Mass
Emerg. Disasters 18:265–87

Olson RS, Drury AC. 1997. Un-therapeutic communities: a cross-national analysis of post-
disaster political unrest. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 15:221–38
Peacock WG, Morrow BH, Gladwin H, eds. 1997. Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and the
Sociology of Disasters. New York: Routledge
Pellig M, ed. 2003. Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. London: Routledge
Perrow C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books
Perrow C. 1991. A society of organizations. Theory Soc. 20:725–62
Perry RW, Quarantelli EL, eds. 2005. What Is a Disaster: New Answers to Old Questions.
Philadelphia, PA: XLibris Corp.
Phillips B. 1998. Sheltering and housing of low-income and minority groups in Santa Cruz
county after the Loma Prieta earthquake. In The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of
October 17, 1989—Recovery, Mitigation, and Reconstruction, ed. JM Nigg, pp. D17–28. U.S.
Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1553D. Washington, DC: USGPO
Platt RH. 1999. Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events. Washington,
DC: Island
Quarantelli EL. 1987. Disaster studies: an analysis of the social historical factors affecting the
development of research in the area. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 5:285–310
Quarantelli EL, ed. 1998. What Is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question. London: Routledge
Quarantelli EL. 2005. A social science research agenda for the disasters of the 21st century:
theoretical, methodological and empirical issues and their professional implementation.
See Perry & Quarantelli 2005, pp. 325–96
Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR. 1970. Property norms and looting. Phylon 31:168–82
Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR. 1972. When disaster strikes (it isn’t much like what you’ve heard
and read about). Psychol. Today 5:66–70
Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR. 1977. Response to social crisis and disaster. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 3:
23–49
Rosa EA, Michlis GE. 2002. It’s a bad thing to make one thing into two: disciplinary distinctions
as trained incapacities. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15:251–61
Rossi PH, Wright JD, Weber-Burdin E. 1982. Natural Hazards and Public Choice: The State and
Local Politics of Hazard Mitigation. New York: Acad. Press
Rozario K. 2001. What comes down must go up: why disasters have been good for American
capitalism. See Biel 2001, pp. 103–26
Ryang S. 2003. The Great Kanto earthquake and the massacre of Koreans in 1923: notes on
Japan’s modern national sovereignty. Anthropol. Q. 76:731–48
524 Tierney
ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13
Schnaiberg A. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Schnaiberg A, Gould KA. 1994. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press
Simile C. 1995. Disaster settings and mobilization for contentious collective action: case studies of
Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta Earthquake. PhD thesis. Univ. Delaware, Newark.
238 pp.
Spector M, Kitsuse JI. 1977. Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings
Stallings RA. 1988. Conflict in natural disasters: a codification of consensus and conflict theo-
ries. Soc. Sci. Q. 69:569–86
Stallings RA. 1995. Promoting Risk: Constructing the Earthquake Threat. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter
Stallings RA. 1998. Disasters and the theory of social order. See Quarantelli 1998, pp. 127–45
Stallings RA, Quarantelli EL. 1985. Emergent citizen groups and emergency management.
Public Adm. Rev. 45:93–100

Steinberg T. 2001. Smoke and mirrors: the San Francisco earthquake and seismic denial. See
Biel 2001, pp. 72–99
Sylves RT. 1996. The politics and budgeting of federal emergency management. In Disaster
Management in the U.S. and Canada: The Politics, Policymaking, Administration and Analysis
of Emergency Management, ed. RT Sylves, WL Waugh, pp. 26–45. Springfield, IL: Charles
C Thomas
Taylor VA. 1976. The delivery of mental health services in the Xenia tornado: a collective behavioral
analysis of an emergent system response. PhD thesis. Ohio State Univ., Columbus. 328 pp.
Taylor VA. 1977. Good news about disasters. Psychol. Today 5:93–94
Tierney KJ. 2002. The field turns fifty: social change and the practice of disaster field work. In
Methods of Disaster Research, ed. RA Stallings, pp. 349–74. Philadelphia, PA: XLibris Corp.
Tierney KJ. 2005. Social inequality, hazards, and disasters. In On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from
Hurricane Katrina, ed. RJ Daniels, DF Kettl, H Kunreuther, pp. 109–28. Philadelphia:
Univ. Penn. Press
Tierney KJ, Bevc C, Kuligowski E. 2006. Metaphors matter: disaster myths, media frames, and
their consequences in Hurricane Katrina. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 604:57–81
Tierney KJ, Lindell MK, Perry RW. 2001. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and
Response in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press
Turner RH, Nigg JM, Heller-Paz D. 1986. Waiting for Disaster: Earthquake Watch in California.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Vaughan D. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at
NASA. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Vaughan D. 1999. The dark side of organizations: mistake, misconduct, and disaster. Annu.
Rev. Sociol. 25:271–305
Weiner M. 1989. The Origins of the Korean Community in Japan, 1910–1923. Atlantic Highlands,
NJ: Humanities
Weiner M. 1994. Race and Migration in Imperial Japan. London: Routledge
Wenger DE, James TF. 1994. The convergence of volunteers in a consensus crisis: the case of
the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. In Disasters, Collective Behavior, and Social Organization,
ed. RR Dynes, KJ Tierney, pp. 229–43. Newark: Univ. Delaware Press
White GF. 1974. Natural Hazards: Local, National, Global. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Wright JD, Rossi PH, Pereira JA, Weber-Burdin E. 1983. Victims of the Environment: Loss from
Natural Hazards in the United States, 1970–1980. New York: Springer
York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T. 2003. Footprints on the earth. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68:279–300

AR316-FM ARI 31 May 2007 15:18
Annual Review
of Sociology
Contents Volume 33, 2007

Frontispiece
Leo A. Goodman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p x
Prefatory Chapter
Statistical Magic and/or Statistical Serendipity: An Age of Progress in
the Analysis of Categorical Data
Leo A. Goodman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p1
Theory and Methods

Bourdieu in American Sociology, 1980–2004
Jeffrey J. Sallaz and Jane Zavisca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 21
Human Motivation and Social Cooperation: Experimental and
Analytical Foundations
Ernst Fehr and Herbert Gintis p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 43
The Niche as a Theoretical Tool
Pamela A. Popielarz and Zachary P. Neal p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 65
Social Processes
Production Regimes and the Quality of Employment in Europe
Duncan Gallie p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 85
The Sociology of Markets
Neil Fligstein and Luke Dauter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p105
Transnational Migration Studies: Past Developments and Future Trends
Peggy Levitt and B. Nadya Jaworsky p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p129
Control Theories in Sociology
Dawn T. Robinson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p157
Institutions and Culture

Military Service in the Life Course
Alair MacLean and Glen H. Elder, Jr. p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p175
v
AR316-FM ARI 31 May 2007 15:18
School Reform 2007: Transforming Education into a Scientific

Enterprise
Barbara L. Schneider and Venessa A. Keesler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p197
Embeddedness and the Intellectual Projects of Economic Sociology
Greta R. Krippner and Anthony S. Alvarez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p219
Political and Economic Sociology

The Sociology of the Radical Right
Jens Rydgren p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p241
Gender in Politics
Pamela Paxton, Sheri Kunovich, and Melanie M. Hughes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p263

Moral Views of Market Society
Marion Fourcade and Kieran Healy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p285
The Consequences of Economic Globalization for Affluent
Democracies
David Brady, Jason Beckfield, and Wei Zhao p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p313
Differentiation and Stratification

Inequality: Causes and Consequences
Kathryn M. Neckerman and Florencia Torche p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p335
Demography
Immigration and Religion
Wendy Cadge and Elaine Howard Ecklund p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p359
Hispanic Families: Stability and Change
Nancy S. Landale and R.S. Oropesa p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p381
Lost and Found: The Sociological Ambivalence Toward Childhood
Suzanne Shanahan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p407
Urban and Rural Community Sociology

The Making of the Black Family: Race and Class in Qualitative Studies
in the Twentieth Century
Frank F. Furstenberg p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p429
Policy
The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction,
Coercion, Competition, or Learning?
Frank Dobbin, Beth Simmons, and Geoffrey Garrett p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p449
vi Contents
AR316-FM ARI 31 May 2007 15:18
Workforce Diversity and Inequality: Power, Status, and Numbers

Nancy DiTomaso, Corinne Post, and Rochelle Parks-Yancy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p473
From the Margins to the Mainstream? Disaster Research
at the Crossroads
Kathleen J. Tierney p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p503
Historical Sociology
Toward a Historicized Sociology: Theorizing Events, Processes, and
Emergence
Elisabeth S. Clemens p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p527
Sociology and World Regions

Old Inequalities, New Disease: HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa
Carol A. Heimer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p551
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 24–33 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p579

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 24–33 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p583
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology chapters (if any, 1997 to
the present) may be found at http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents vii

Desaster Research at The Crossroads

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Desaster Research at The Crossroads

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANRV316-SO33-23 ARI 24 May 2007 11:13

From the Margins to the

Research at the Crossroads

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007. 33:503–25 Key Words

The Annual Review of Sociology is online at Abstract

INTRODUCTION: HOW WE and other extreme events in the United States

populations suffering the depredations of nu-

cally as a consequence of disasters that affect

during riots, characterized as dissensus crises,

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 505

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 507

academic specialties that focus on extreme Challenges to classic frameworks em-

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 509

spective focuses on disaster as an inevitable rective to common-sense and ofﬁcial think-

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 511

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 513

to carry out gender-blind studies (Enarson & the race-as-a-variable/class-as-a-variable ap-

by disaster were highlighted in books such as experiences to broader structural forces.

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 515

2006). ularly in the past ten years, NSF funding op-

with mainstream sociology. Along with attended by professional emergency man-

disciplinary extreme-event-oriented publica- essentially ignored disaster research. With a

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 517

impacts . . . . Urban earthquakes and the dis-

AT THE CROSSROADS: tor interjected seismically into the ongoing

Discussions so far have centered on the

Disaster research can be linked with disasters, as opposed to technological disas-

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 519

retical reason why disasters should be stud- human-environment interactions.

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 521

and climate. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2:157–66

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 523

Emerg. Disasters 18:265–87

Public Adm. Rev. 45:93–100

www.annualreviews.org • Disaster Research at the Crossroads 525

Contents Volume 33, 2007

Theory and Methods

Institutions and Culture

School Reform 2007: Transforming Education into a Scientiﬁc

Political and Economic Sociology

Pamela Paxton, Sheri Kunovich, and Melanie M. Hughes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p263

Differentiation and Stratification

Urban and Rural Community Sociology

Workforce Diversity and Inequality: Power, Status, and Numbers

Sociology and World Regions

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 24–33 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p579

You might also like