An exploration of objectivism and social constructivism within the context of disaster risk

Author:

Chipangura Paul,Van Niekerk Dewald,Van Der Waldt Gerrit

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand the meaning of social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk from which disaster risk policy can be analysed. In particular, the paper attempts to explore the implications of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk which is essential in explaining why disaster risk has different nuances and consequently policy responses. Design/methodology/approach – A literature survey was used to explore social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk. The survey involved documentary searches from academic books, journal articles and disaster risk reports to serve as primary research data. Findings – The analysis revealed that viewing and managing disasters through the lens of objectivism might not yield the desired results of minimising risk as it conceals the vulnerabilities to disaster risk. The objectivist perspective is therefore in itself considered inadequate for the study of disaster risk and that social constructivist assumptions are required in order to analyse disaster risk. Towards this end, social constructivism offers a discursive approach to disaster risk policy science; one that more optimally illuminates competing local perspectives. Originality/value – An epistemological and ontological assessment of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk can assist greatly in understanding the discursive dimension of disaster risk through explanations of how and why disasters are framed the way they are framed and the implications of this on policy formulation and implementation.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Health(social science)

Reference62 articles.

1. Adams, J. and Thompson, M. (2002), “Taking account of societal concerns about risk: framing the problem”, available at: www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr035.pdf (accessed 15 June 2015).

2. Alexander, D. (2000), Confronting Catastrophe , Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

3. Althaus, C.E. (2005), “A disciplinary perspective on the epistemological status of risk”, Risk Analysis , Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 567-588.

4. Aragón, G.C. (2001), Construcción y reconstrucción del desastre , Plaza y Valdés.

5. AU/NEPAD (2004), “Africa regional strategy for disaster risk reduction”, available at: www.unisdr.org/africa/af-hfa/docs/africa-regional-strategy.pdf (accessed 2 April 2015).

Cited by 15 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3