This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: 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
This report seeks to open a dialogue and to shed light on where consensus exists in the field of emergency management as it relates to what the important issues and fundamental principles are. By examining the responses of thirty-six respondents across three groups within emergency management academics, practitioners and consultants, we gain insight into the field both as it applies to the views of the specific groups and as it applies to consensus across groups. This report is the result of the time, energy and contributions of a committed group of professionals dedicated to the advancement and evolution of emergency management. INTRODUCTION This foray into the minds of select emergency management academics, practitioners, and consultants began where so many of these journeys begin, in a dialogue seeking insight. This particular journey began when Dr. B. Wayne Blanchard, the Project Manager of FEMA's Emergency Management Higher Education Project, actively sought out answers to what he thought was a simple query regarding the fundamental principles of emergency management. Blanchard was disappointed to learn that there was no clear agreement or anything specifically delineated and universally accepted as the fundamental principles of emergency management. This research effort as well as the initial Emergency Management Roundtable Meeting held at the Emergency Management Institute in March of 2007 (and subsequent efforts on that front), are the byproduct of Blanchard's commitment to address the foundational matter of emergency management principles. In this study, participants were asked to offer their thoughts on important issues and topics facing emergency management, their view of characteristics as they apply to "stereotypical" and "new generation" emergency management professionals, demographic information and what they believed were the fundamental principles of emergency management. The data returned by the participants to the open-ended questions was expansive and is worthy of a deeper, multifaceted discussion than cannot be undertaken in this report, but will be explored in future work as an integral piece of a more holistic dialogue that focuses on the identity of emergency management. It is apparent from reviewing the raw data that there are many issues that require the attention of those committed to professionalizing the field and supporting the emerging discipline. The intent of including the raw narrative data (Appendix B) as an attachment is to stimulate and support a broader discussion across the emergency management community and to empower the dialogue of identity and purpose as it necessarily elevates to the law and policy making level. The raw narrative data gives valuable insight into how much consensus there actually is both within the participant groups and across them. It would have been interesting to have run a Phase III Delphi wherein each participant group reviewed the other two groups comments as well, but tremendously time-consuming for the participants. There was an expectation on the researcher's part that dramatic differences would be evident between the participant groups' opinions, yet those dramatic differences did not surface in the data. It is unknown whether that is a function of the similarities in the demographics or perhaps an indicator of the emergence of a shared identity. What can be stated with certainty is that the most powerful data for consensus across the field and the beginning of a much deeper dialogue sits within the over 70 pages of narrative data in the appendix. Appendix A contains the list of study participants who so graciously gave of their time and who consented to having their names listed in the appendix. The participants are listed alphabetically without designation of group or participant number. The participant list is included to provide the reader with an appreciation of the type of professionals engaged in the dialogue and to acknowledge the participants' commitment to contributing to the advancement, and indeed, the evolution of emergency management. Appendix C contains a themed consolidation of Phase I narrative responses that was created by Dr. B. Wayne Blanchard in March 2007 to inform the Emergency Management Roundtable. The consolidation is included here as it is useful in providing a quick snapshot of Phase I narrative responses and it is supportive of the work done by the Emergency Management Roundtable group on the elucidation of principles. Appendix D contains the one page summary of the principles generated out of the Emergency Management Roundtable in March 2007. METHODOLOGY This study consisted of two phases. The first phase utilized the initial survey instrument and the second phase utilized a Delphi method approach. Phase I was distributed to 60 specially selected potential participants across three groups of emergency management professionals academics (A), practitioners (P) and c...
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