Description, Taxonomy, and Explanation in Disaster Research

Abstract

I am pleased that my paper stimulated the constructive commentaries of Professors Quarantelli, Drabek, and Turner. We seem to agree on several important points. First, the ideas proposed in my paper are grounded in sociological studies of disasters, are tentative, and should be abandoned wherever and whenever they don't help us to understand the phenomena we purport to study. Second, the development and refinement of concepts and theories in any science involves a healthy tension between inventing and discovering knowledge. Third, a life-cycle approach to emergencies and disasters is essential if we are to unravel how social structure and disaster interrelate. Fourth, there are practical dangers in making generalizations about social structure and disaster without also specifying the circumstances to which these generalizations apply. Fifth, because disaster research is necessarily a multidisciplinary field, we need to be flexible about defining boundaries of research. Sixth, in drawing on a wide variety of perspectives and theories, the resulting descriptions and explanations provided by each one will be partial and incomplete. Finally, the creation of special and more general classification schemes is an essential requirement of theory building, particularly when the subject matter is as inclusive as this one seems to be. But no classification scheme should become a sacred grail or straightjacket.