Dr Helen Giggins

In response to the growing interdisciplinarity of disaster research, this paper explores the philosophical underpinnings of disaster research to a) elucidate the methodological choices that disaster researchers make b) reflect on how these different choices and philosophical approaches consider disaster risk, and c) provide arguments in favor of the application of social constructivism for improving the results of disaster research. It investigates the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of social constructivism and objectivism and reflects on how they are applied in disaster research through a review of the literature. For ease and to avoid repetitive duplication of the references, the endnote reference manager was used in this study, with all references employed in this study managed using the endnote library. APA 6th reference style is followed to manage and harmonized the bibliographic section. Its findings indicate that the objectivist approaches that dominated the field until the 1980s emphasized the role of science and technology in reducing disaster risk focused on the physical and natural elements of different disasters, and therefore lack certain applicability. As a counter, this paper argues that a discursive, social constructivist approach that considers disasters as socially framed, rooted, and constructed may provide more fruitful applications of disaster research.

The construction sector has an important role to play in the future creation of a more resilient built environment. The restoration of and design of new community infrastructure in the wake of major disasters can provide opportunities to reduce future threats and hazards in the built environment. However, there are often competing interests involved and these sociopolitical factors may result in a lack of transparency and fairness around decision-making processes. It has been previously documented that reconstruction efforts can be unduly impacted by misguided political and economic pressures to get communities 'back on their feet' quickly. Large scale disasters, particularly where there has been significant loss of life, tend to trigger intense media scrutiny and public expectation for rapid response and recovery. Particularly where there has been a large public fund-raising effort, both victims and donors often feel a stronger sense of attachment to the immediate recovery efforts in effected communities. The resulting media scrutiny and public pressure, real or perceived, on politicians to make quick decisions in relation to the reconstruction of community built infrastructure can lead to knee-jerk announcements regarding reconstruction plans that do not consider the longer-term sustainability and resilience of a community. In non-urban, or regional, communities the impact of poor political decisions can become even more pronounced. This paper will present analysis from semi-structured interviews conducted with stakeholders involved in the reconstruction after the 'Black Saturday' fires that occurred in regional Victoria, Australia, in early 2009.

In the aftermath of disasters attention naturally focuses on the impacts humans experience during rescue, recovery and rebuilding. Resilient outcomes are desirable but by no means guaranteed, and the consequences are usually attributed to the actions of humans. In a novel deployment this research uses an Actor Network Theory (ANT) lens to reanalyse case study data from three disaster theatres. It reveals the impact of nonhuman actants upon human actants, and their consequences for recovery efforts and resilience outcomes. In particular it exposes the potential economic retardation that food aid can inflict on fragile societies; the value of coherent policies and processes for resilient reconstruction in highly structured societies, and; the mixed blessings arising from the presence of TV cameras in disaster theatres. It concludes that using an ANT lens sensitises researchers to the influences that nonhuman actants can exert in dynamic post-disaster contexts, but that the use of purist ANT approach to solving problems within disaster theatres is not a practical proposition.