What Is a Disaster?: New Answers to Old Questions

by Ronald W. Perry, E.L. Quarantelli

What is a Disaster? Addresses the most basic question in the field: that of defining the phenomenon of study. For theoretical advancement, it is important that researchers begin to develop a consensus about the meaning of disasters and related phenomena. With the rise in international terrorism, one must clarify whether these events are disasters and if so, what kind of disasters. Similarly, in addition to natural disasters, do we include riots, explosions, nuclear power plant accidents, damn collapses, and land subsidence under the same conceptual umbrella? What practical and theoretical differences does it make if the same label is used or not used for such different situations? What is a Disaster? Brings together twelve social scientists representing eight disciplines and seven countries to share their definition and vision of disasters. In the process, a wide range of views are expressed and issues raised regarding the relationship of academic versus practical definitions, the impact of grouping types of disasters in different ways, and the epistemologies on which theoretical growth should rest. The forum provided involves the presentation of each author's views, followed by a discussant's critique, and closed with a response from the author. The editor's close the volume with discussions of the theoretical framework of disaster research and an agenda for disaster research in the twenty-first century.

Genres: Nonfiction

444 pages, Hardcover

First published May 12, 1998

Reviews

[Hans · Rating 3 out of 5]

What is a Disaster? Who would have thought that one could dedicate over 400 pages, several essays from various scholars, and still end the book without a clear answer. I got frustrated near the end of the book as the continual bickering between scholars began to feel petty like spliting hairs.

What I think this book really is about is a clear reflection of the nature of academia. Scholars can get so easily carried away in what they are trying to do that it is no wonder people feel like they have their "heads-in-the-clouds". Of course they won't reach a consensus on the meaning of the word "Disaster", for many reasons. First the word already has a long history with different meanings already attached to it. They are essentially trying to control an already widely used adjective and force it into the mold they want. Not to mention that because it is a purely subjective interpretation people will never agree about the meaning of something when each has strong individual preferences or tastes.

I think the book helps flesh out core ideas but ultimately fails at trying to find a consensus and so academia will be forced to accept the untolerable ambiguity.

[J.R. · Rating 2 out of 5]

In my honest opinion, the book's value could have been delivered in about 33% of the length. The sheer amount of contributors arguing over a precise academic definition of disaster was interesting at first, but became very redundant 400 pages in. It read like a philosophy book arguing over the abstract concept of "I am", with scholars disagreeing over the most petty of differences.

Wouldn't recommend unless you are studying the sociology of disaster. If you are a practitioner of emergency or crisis management, I honestly would skip over the book unless you have an abundance of free time.

[Brandon Barrett · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is terrible. I had to read this for my masters course and felt like I had no idea what was going on for all 396 pages. Never have I felt so lost in the clouds, than when I read this book. Imagine reading a book where the authors spend the entire time arguing about a definition, only to conclude that their is no easy definition or clear concensus on the matter. Additionally, there are dozens of spelling and grammatical errors in this book that should have been caught in the editing phase. In short, this book is less than pleasing to read.

[Gail Ryver · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book fulfills it’s intent to create a discussion around disaster. It is a fast read.