 |
Editorial |
|
|
Editorial |
Within progressively more complex societies, technological and human-made disasters are
likely to increase in incidence. The immediacy of these catastrophic events often hides the
complexity of their causation and the time frame within which their origins must be
conceptualised. Issac, using the 1995 Cave Creek disaster as an illustrative example, draws
upon the work of Reason (1990) to explore the manner in which the potential for
organisational systems failure can develop over a period of several years and then interact at
one point in time with local factors to create a mix of conditions that can culminate in
disaster. While this model provides a basis for planning and implementing disaster reduction
initiatives, Issac's analysis is also informative in drawing attention for the need to move away
from a focus on proximal conditions and rely more on the careful analysis of organisational
activities that develop over a longer time frame if we are to develop a comprehensive
understanding of the causation of technological disasters. The acceptance of a more
prominent role for diverse organisational systems and practices, and not just those directly
concerned with health and safety, in creating a safer environment, together with the
comprehensive application of the model, will facilitate the exercising of control of the causes
of at least some technological disasters.
While a similar measure of control cannot be exercised over the hazard that is the focus of
the next paper, Hurnen and McClure discuss the use of attribution theory to identify factors
that influence the manner in which community members understand earthquake damage and
act to minimise its personal consequences. By comparing citizens' knowledge about damage
preventability with that of expert sources, knowledge gaps and misconceptions can be
identified and used to frame information and educational programmes. Hurnen and McClure,
in discussing the theoretical implications of their findings, provide a model that can be
adapted to promote understanding of general hazard activity and to develop preventative
programmes to facilitate exercising control over the effects of hazard activity.
When disasters do occur, the ensuing response calls upon the services of the members of
several professions. Involvement in this capacity can result in the experience of traumatic
stress reactions. Given the importance of this role, considerable attention has been directed
towards understanding the nature of these reactions and exploring what can be done to protect
well-being and assist coping efforts. Massam and Moran enter this debate by exploring the
role of humour as a coping strategy and discuss how it can act to ameliorate distress and
promote well-being, but under certain conditions reflect the operation of denial processes.
Their analysis posts a warning about the manner in which the efficacy of any coping strategy
is defined. Massam and Moran's discussion is interesting in another respect. It goes beyond
exploring the use of this strategy is isolation and discusses its relationship to other
organisational processes. This point reflects the growing acceptance of work-related traumatic
stress reactions as reflecting an interaction between an event, the person and the
organisational context within which the experience occurs. In this respect, there are
interesting parallels between their arguments and those presented by Issac.
Many of those who respond to disaster, or whose professional role involves exposure to
traumatic incidents, can encounter several such experiences over the course of their career.
Although long-term exposure to emotionally challenging professional demands has attracted
attention, this work has focused predominantly on military groups. Violanti draws upon this
work and applies it to police officers. He describes the implications of this aspect of their
work by emphasising its implications for addictive behaviour and residual effects, both of
which only appear if behaviour is observed over a prolonged period. A predominant research
focus on acute episodes tends to obscure the complexity and persistence of traumatic stress
reactivity. In addition to extending its influence beyond the person directly involved, most
notably to encompass family members, it is interesting to note the relative independence
between traumatic work and traumatic reactivity. The residual stress hypothesis discussed by
Violanti describes the persistence of effects well beyond the point of separation for hazardous
duties. He also discusses the relationship between these patterns of reactivity and the
organisational context within which they occur and argues for the development of special
support strategies and the need for their implementation during and beyond the period of
employment.
The papers presented in this volume represent contributions from diverse professions and the
applicability of theoretical constructs to understand complex phenomena and to frame
interventions for their management. A number of themes emerge for these papers.
One relates to the time frame within which disaster and trauma phenomena should be
considered. Snap-shot and cross-sectional studies will fail to capture the complexity of the
salient issues and alternative methodologies must be utilised. The possibility of repeated
exposure to disasters and the continuous influence of social and organisational variables on
causality emphasises the need for comprehensive analysis conducted over time. Adopting a
longitudinal approach has a number of implications for research. Two features of research
in this field require special attention. The design of true experiments is virtually precluded
on ethical grounds. Thus the research designs will almost always be quasi-experimental or
"natural experiments" and the analysis of change-scores will have to cope with regression
effects and other technical problems. The use of single-indicator measures and single-group,
pretest-posttest designs cannot answer questions about change. More than two waves of data
must be collected for effective measurement of change. One or more groups can be followed
through the sequence of events. When more than one group is used they can be studied in
parallel, as in the case of comparison designs, or studied as lagged cohorts. The latter
represents a superior method for studying the aetiology of disaster stress.
The content of these papers also reflect the growing awareness that the causation of disaster
and traumatic stress phenomena can best be understood in terms of the complex interaction
between individuals, groups, organisations and disasters. Conducting analyses of these
complex patterns, and implementing the interventions that ensue from them, will require a
multi-disciplinary approach. For example, Isaac's paper signals a role for collaboration
between administrative science, health and safety and organisational psychology and Hurnen
and McClure's work provides a context for the fruitful interaction between physical and social
scientists. It is hoped that these opportunities can be capitalised upon, contribute to
promoting comprehensive understanding of disaster and trauma phenomena, and facilitate the
development of holistic and effective interventions.
