This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: March 2007. In addition to the coded responses of study participants, a summary of themes that arose in the responses was compiled by Dr. Wayne B. Blanchard and distributed to the Emergency Management Roundtable members to help inform their discussion on the principles of emergency management (see Appendix C). As is true in all studies of this sort, a few participants did not respond to all of the questions. To the extent that the absence of this data is relevant it has been mentioned in the discussion. As is true in all studies, the limitations of the survey instrument typically only becomes glaringly apparent upon receipt of participants' responses. The survey instrument in asking about the highest level of education completed, had no allowance for any other doctoral level than a Ph.D. This was mentioned by a couple of the participants who took the time to specifically elaborate their doctorate degrees next to the category. This was an oversight on the researcher's part and due to the attentiveness of the participants did not detract from the study results. All participants that have indicated their highest level of education at the doctoral level have been included as such independent of what the type of doctoral degree is. Another concern with the survey instrument relates to the Likert scale utilized for the characteristic assessments. The scale was a five point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) with the midpoint being Agree (3). In retrospect the midpoint should have been a neutral point as opposed to a level of gradient toward agreement. This should be considered in the evaluation of the characteristic assessment data offered herein. Arguably, participants utilized the scale with the midpoint serving as a point of neutrality, but without it being demarcated as such that position cannot be empirically stated as being so. Generic participant references throughout this report are made on behalf of the collective participants (N=36) as opposed to the three separate participant groups. If a specific group is being referenced in the narrative or via data, the group is either referenced by the full group name (academic, practitioner or consultant) or by their representative letters (A, P or C). Participants' comments are separated by a series of lines to ease any confusion on the reader's part and in the interest of including as many comments as possible without making the report unwieldy. Some comments are excerpts of larger comments and not all comments are in the body of the report.
Issues, Principles And Attitudes Oh My! Examining Perceptions from Select Academics, Practitioners And Consultants on the Subject of Emergency Management Carol L. Cwiak, North Dakota State University DISCUSSION This section includes sub-headings to assist the reader in navigating through the material. The survey instrument, while not tremendously long or detailed, allowed for open-ended narratives as well as specific categorized responses. The demographic and attitudinal data collected enables the reader to form a snapshot of the participants' which allows for a more informed evaluation by the reader of the participants' comments. Demographics The participant demographics help to provide a context to their comments. Demographic data regarding education, group identification, annual salary, years in the field, gender, and ethnicity were collected to allow the reader to get a more complete view of the participant pool's identity. The participants ranged in age from 31-67 years old, with a mean age of 53 (A-39-64 years old; P-31-67; C-40-67). The participant's were primarily male (Male-29, Female-7) and Caucasian (Caucasian-32, Latino-1, Black -1, Other-1). The average annual pay reported by the participants was more than $75,000 a year (see Annual Pay below).
All Participants Consultants $100,001+ $75,001-$100,000 Practitioners $50,001-$75,000 Under $50,000 Academics 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 The participants' years of experience in the field of emergency management range from 340 years (A- 3-35 years; P- 4-35 years; C- 13-40 years). The participants of the survey collectively possess 635 years of experience between them. Interestingly, the majority of participants (51%) reported being in their current position for five years or less. Education and Experience The participants were asked to provide their highest level of completed education. More than sixty-five percent of the participants indicated their education level as inclusive of graduate level courses or graduate degrees. No participant indicated an education level below an Associate Degree. Not surprisingly, in the academic group the vast majority of participants reported having doctoral degrees (see Education Level below). 5 Issues, Principles And Attitudes Oh My! Examining Perceptions from Select Academics, Practitioners And Consultants on the Subject of Emergency Management Carol L. Cwiak, North Dakota State University 80 Education Level Academics Practitioners 70 60 50 Consultants 40 30
Percentage 20 10 0
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/14/2008 for the course EM EM-2212-26 taught by Professor Arlenemacgregor during the Spring '08 term at Mass Maritime.
- Spring '08
- The American, Emergency service