Courage has remained an elusive concept to define despite having been in the English lexicon for hundreds of years. The Canterbury earthquake sequence that began in 2010 provided a unique context in which to undertake research that would contribute to further conceptualisation of courage. This qualitative study was undertaken in Christchurch, New Zealand, with adults over the age of 70 who experienced the Canterbury earthquakes and continued to live in the Canterbury region. The population group was chosen because it is an under researched group in post-disaster environments, and one that offers valuable insights because of members' length and breadth of life experiences, and likely reminiscent and reflective life stage. A constructivist grounded theory approach was utilised, with data collected through semi-structured focus groups and individual key informant interviews. The common adverse experience of the participants initially discussed was the earthquakes, which was followed by exploration of courage in their other lived experiences. Through an inductive process of data analysis, conceptual categories were identified, which when further analysed and integrated, contributed to a definition of courage. The definition was subsequently discussed with social work professionals who had remained working in the Canterbury region after experiencing the earthquakes. From the examples and the actions described within these, a process model was developed to support the application of courage. The model includes five steps: recognising an adverse situation, making a conscious decision to act, accessing sources of motivation, mastering emotion and taking action. Defining and utilising courage can help people to face adversity associated with everyday life and ultimately supports self-actualisation and self-development. Recommendations from the study include teaching about courage within social work education, utilising the process model within supervision, intentionally involving older adults in emergency management planning and developing specific social work tasks in hospital settings following a disaster
Though generally considered “natural” disasters, cyclones and earthquakes are increasingly being associated with human activities, incubated through urban settlement patterns and the long-term redistribution of natural resources. As society is becoming more urbanized, the risk of human exposure to disasters is also rising. Architecture often reflects the state of society’s health: architectural damage is the first visible sign of emergency, and reconstruction is the final response in the process of recovery. An empirical assessment of architectural projects in post-disaster situations can lead to a deeper understanding of urban societies as they try to rebuild. This thesis offers an alternative perspective on urban disasters by looking at the actions and attitudes of disaster professionals through the lens of architecture, situated in recent events: the 2010 Christchurch earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. An empirical, multi-hazard, cross-sectional case study methodology was used, employing grounded theory method to build theory, and a critical constructivist strategy to inform the analysis. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, this thesis positions architecture as a conduit between two divergent approaches to disaster research: the hazards approach, which studies the disaster cycles from a scientific perspective; and the sociological approach, which studies the socially constructed vulnerabilities that result from disasters, and the elements of social change that accompany such events. Few studies to date have attempted to integrate the multi-disciplinary perspectives that can advance our understanding of societal problems in urban disasters. To bridge this gap, this thesis develops what will be referred to as the “Rittelian framework”—based on the work of UC Berkeley’s architecture professor Horst Rittel (1930-1990). The Rittelian framework uses the language of design to transcend the multiple fields of human endeavor to address the “design problems” in disaster research. The processes by which societal problems are addressed following an urban disaster involve input by professionals from multiple fields—including economics, sociology, medicine, and engineering—but the contribution from architecture has been minimal to date. The main impetus for my doctoral thesis has been the assertion that most of the decisions related to reconstruction are made in the early emergency recovery stages where architects are not involved, but architects’ early contribution is vital to the long-term reconstruction of cities. This precipitated in the critical question: “How does the Rittelian framework contribute to the critical design decisions in modern urban disasters?” Comparative research was undertaken in three case studies of recent disasters in New Orleans (2005), Haiti (2010) and Christchurch (2010), by interviewing 51 individuals who were selected on the basis of employing the Rittelian framework in their humanitarian practice. Contextualizing natural disaster research within the robust methodological framework of architecture and the analytical processes of sociology is the basis for evaluating the research proposition that architectural problem solving is of value in addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ of disasters. This thesis has found that (1) the nuances of the way disaster agents interpret the notion of “building back better” can influence the extent to which architectural professionals contribute in urban disaster recovery, (2) architectural design can be used to facilitate but also impede critical design decisions, and (3) framing disaster research in terms of design decisions can lead to innovation where least expected. This empirical research demonstrates how the Rittelian framework can inform a wider discussion about post-disaster human settlements, and improve our resilience through disaster research
