Ruth Gardner's Blog 27/02/2011: Day 6, 3pm - inside the Christchurch cordon
Articles, UC QuakeStudies
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 27 February 2011 entitled, "Day 6, 3pm - inside the Christchurch cordon".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 27 February 2011 entitled, "Day 6, 3pm - inside the Christchurch cordon".
Background: We are in a period of history where natural disasters are increasing in both frequency and severity. They are having widespread impacts on communities, especially on vulnerable communities, those most affected who have the least ability to prepare or respond to a disaster. The ability to assemble and effectively manage Interagency Emergency Response Teams (IERTs) is critical to navigating the complexity and chaos found immediately following disasters. These teams play a crucial role in the multi-sectoral, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary, and inter-organisational response and are vital to ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable populations such as the young, aged, and socially and medically disadvantaged in disasters. Communication is key to the smooth operation of these teams. Most studies of the communication in IERTs during a disaster have been focussed at a macro-level of examining larger scale patterns and trends within organisations. Rarely found are micro-level analyses of interpersonal communication at the critical interfaces between collaborating agencies. This study set out to understand the experiences of those working at the interagency interfaces in an IERT set up by the Canterbury District Health Board to respond to the needs of the vulnerable people in the aftermath of the destructive earthquakes that hit Canterbury, New Zealand, in 2010-11. The aim of the study was to gain insights about the complexities of interpersonal communication (micro-level) involved in interagency response coordination and to generate an improved understanding into what stabilises the interagency communication interfaces between those agencies responding to a major disaster. Methods: A qualitative case study research design was employed to investigate how interagency communication interfaces were stabilised at the micro-level (“the case”) in the aftermath of the destructive earthquakes that hit Canterbury in 2010-11 (“the context”). Participant recruitment was undertaken by mapping which agencies were involved within the IERT and approaching representatives from each of these agencies. Data was collected via individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide and was based on the “Critical Incident Technique”. Subsequently, data was transcribed verbatim and subjected to inductive analysis. This was underpinned theoretically by Weick’s “Interpretive Approach” and supported by Nvivo qualitative data analysis software. Results: 19 participants were interviewed in this study. Out of the inductive analysis emerged two primary themes, each with several sub-factors. The first major theme was destabilising/disruptive factors of interagency communication with five sub-factors, a) conflicting role mandates, b) rigid command structures, c) disruption of established communication structures, d) lack of shared language and understanding, and e) situational awareness disruption. The second major theme stabilising/steadying factors in interagency communication had four sub-factors, a) the establishment of the IERT, b) emergent novel communication strategies, c) establishment of a liaison role and d) pre-existing networks and relationships. Finally, there was a third sub-level identified during inductive analysis, where sub-factors from both primary themes were noted to be uniquely interconnected by emergent “consequences” arising out of the disaster context. Finally, findings were synthesised into a conceptual “Model of Interagency Communication at the Micro-level” based on this case study of the Canterbury earthquake disaster response. Discussion: The three key dimensions of The People, The Connections and The Improvisations served as a framework for the discussion of what stabilises interagency communication interfaces in a major disaster. The People were key to stabilising the interagency interfaces through functioning as a flexible conduit, guiding and navigating communication at the interagency interfaces and improving situational awareness. The Connections provided the collective competence, shared decision-making and prior established relationships that stabilised the micro-level communication at interagency interfaces. And finally, The Improvisations i.e., novel ideas and inventiveness that emerge out of rapidly changing post-disaster environments, also contributed to stabilisation of micro-level communication flows across interagency interfaces in the disaster response. “Command and control” hierarchical structures do provide clear processes and structures for teams working in disasters to follow. However, improvisations and novel solutions are also needed and often emerge from first responders (who are best placed to assess the evolving needs in a disaster where there is a high degree of uncertainty). Conclusion: This study highlights the value of incorporating an interface perspective into any study that seeks to understand the processes of IERTs during disaster responses. It also strengthens the requirement for disaster management frameworks to formally plan for and to allow for the adaptive responsiveness of local teams on the ground, and legitimise and recognise the improvisations of those in the role of emergent boundary spanners in a disaster response. This needs to be in addition to existing formal disaster response mechanisms. This study provides a new conceptual model that can be used to guide future case studies exploring stability at the interfaces of other IERTs and highlights the centrality of communication in the experiences of members of teams in the aftermath of a disaster. Utilising these new perspectives on stabilising communication at the interagency interfaces in disaster responses will have practical implications in the future to better serve the needs of vulnerable people who are at greatest risk of adverse outcomes in a disaster.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 29 October 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 5 March 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 5 August 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A news item titled, "Parks and Reserves Update September 2011", published on the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre's website on Friday, 23 September 2011.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 16 January 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 5 September 2010 entitled, "Aftershocks".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 20 January 2011 entitled, "Another Earthquake".
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 7 November 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 23 April 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 26 December 2010 entitled, "Earthquake - again!".
A letter written by Roz Johnson to family members overseas.
The Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre's "Community Earthquake Update" bulletin, published on Friday 22 July 2011.
The Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre's "Community Earthquake Update" bulletin, published on Friday 29 July 2011.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 24 October 2011, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
Interagency Emergency Response Teams (IERTs) play acrucial role in times of disasters. Therefore it is crucial to understand more thoroughly the communication roles and responsibilities of interagency team members and to examine how individual members communicate within a complex, evolving, and unstable environment. It is also important to understand how different organisational identities and their spatial geographies contribute to the interactional dynamics. Earthquakes hit the Canterbury region on September, 2010 and then on February 2011 a more devastating shallow earthquake struck resulting in severe damage to the Aged Residential Care (ARC) sector. Over 600 ARC beds were lost and 500 elderly and disabled people were displaced. Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) set up an interagency emergency response team to address the issues of vulnerable people with significant health and disability needs who were unable to access their normal supports due to the effects of the earthquake. The purpose of this qualitative interpretive study is to focus on the case study of the response and evacuation of vulnerable people by interagencies responding to the event. Staff within these agencies were interviewed with a focus on the critical incidents that either stabilised or negatively influenced the outcome of the response. The findings included the complexity of navigating multiple agencies communication channels; understanding the different hierarchies and communication methods within each agency; data communication challenges when infrastructures were severely damaged; the importance of having the right skills, personal attributes and understanding of the organisations in the response; and the significance of having a liaison in situ representing and communicating through to agencies geographically dispersed from Canterbury. It is hoped that this research will assist in determining a future framework for interagency communication best practice and policy.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 10 March 2011 entitled, "Day 17, 6pm - inside the red zone".
This article discusses the use of radio after major earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2010 and 2011. It draws on archival sources to retrospectively research post-quake audiences in the terms people used during and soon after the earthquakes through personal narratives and Twitter. Retrospective narratives of earthquake experiences affirm the value of radio for communicating the scale of disaster and comforting listeners during dislocation from safe home spaces. In the narratives radio is often compared with television, which signifies electricity supply and associated comfort but also visually confirms the city’s destruction. Twitter provides insights into radio use from within the disaster period, but its more global reach facilitates reflection on online and international radio from outside the disaster-affected area. This research demonstrates the value of archival audience research, and finds that the combination of online radio and Twitter enables a new form of participatory disaster spectatorship from afar.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 6 October 2010 entitled, "Personal or Professional?".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 7 September 2010 entitled, "Labouring with Love".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 31 December 2011 entitled, "Awareness or Apprehension?".
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 23 January 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 8 October 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A news item titled, "Stop the Consultative Process", published on the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre's website on Thursday, 13 October 2011.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 5 March 2011 entitled, "Day 12. 7.50pm - inside the Christchurch cordon".
A news item titled, "Lyttelton Tunnel", published on the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre's website on Thursday, 29 September 2011.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 23 July 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Review" newsletter for 1 October 2012, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.