Unformatted text preview: onsultants (C). Of the 60 solicited, a number of the
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 potential participants indicated that they did not have the time to participate within the timeline of the study. In total, 36 responded in Phase I (A-12, P-13, C-11). Of those responding to Phase I, 35 had their open-ended responses placed in a Phase II instrument that was redistributed to those who participated in Phase I for review and comment (one survey was received back shortly after the Phase II instrument went out). Each participant group received for review only the comments made by their own group (i.e.: academics only received academics Phase I comments for review, practitioners only received practitioners comments, etc.). 14 Phase II instruments were returned with comments (A-7, P-4, C-3). Phase II allowed participants to indicate concurrence or lack thereof (concur, somewhat concur, do not concur) and to proffer additional comments. All of the comments received in Phases I and II are included in Appendix B. It is important at this juncture to supply a context for participant response levels and the later discussion framework as it relates to the narrative responses. This study, although conceived of well over a year ago, was not actually put fully in motion until February of 2007. Participant lists and the survey instrument were created early on and then sat idle while the researcher was involved in other projects. Additionally, there was a required review of the survey instrument, methodology and study particulars at the departmental and institutional level that required collaboration with others' impacted schedules. Participants were not allowed a wealth of time to return Phase II responses based on the original report deadline (which was subsequently extended, but did not accrue to participants' benefit). This caused a number of participants to indicate that they could not complete Phase II in the time allotted due to other commitments. It is noted that the researcher's other commitments condensed the timeline and impacted response rate. Of note, the majority of participants have agreed to interviews beyond the survey instrument and those interviews will be utilized to expand and deepen the discussion started herein in a later dialogue that focuses on the role of principles in the identity of emergency management. It must be said that all of the participants have made a sincere and dedicated effort to contribute to this important dialogue and their contributions despite any limitations within the study cannot be diminished. As to the discussion framework, the extension of the timeline resulted in the researcher being involved in the Emergency Management Roundtable in March 2007 (prior to completing Phase II of the study or this final report), wherein emergency management principles were agreed upon and put to paper by the working group. A draft of these principles was made available in June 2007 at FEMA's Emergency Management Higher Education Conference. A copy of that material is included as Appendix D. These principles are utilized in the discussion to capture the themes that emerged from the study participants. This utilization of the principles from the working group as a framework is arguably a chicken and egg discussion, as the Phase I responses were supplied to, and intended to, inform the working group (among a number of other items). Inasmuch, it is a less a function of supporting the research or the working group's product than a framework for what is. There is albeit a comfort of sorts to be derived in the consensus of themes that have emerged from both distinct processes and it lends support to the notion of a shared identity that although not always explicit in its presentation, is implicitly rooted in the emergency management community.
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 Comments in this report and in the appendix are labeled by group and participant number. The groups are as follows: academics (1), practitioners (2), and consultants (3). The comments referenced in the report are referenced solely by the group-participant number. For the purposes of this study, participants were allowed to offer their comments with a certain level of anonymity. Although the participants are listed in the appendix, the only one who is fully informed of which comments belong to which participant (beyond individual participants' knowledge of their own comments) is the researcher. This approach was taken to encourage an open dialogue that would not be affected by the influence of any recognized expertise or credibility. As related above, responses from Phase I of the study were utilized to help inform the Emergency Management Roundtable Meeting in...
View Full Document
- Spring '08
- The American, Emergency service