How should we research disaster? with care?

Disasters often unsettle and expose the normal functioning of societal structures and institutions (Anderson and Adey, 2011). They differentially disrupt everyday life and the relations between human, non-human and more-than-human beings (ibid; Adey et al., 2015). We, working within disaster science, policy and practice, are therefore confronted with the pressing and ongoing need to make sense of the plural experiences of those at-risk and/or affected by such events. We, working within disaster science, policy and practice, are increasingly tasked with shifting our research methodologies and methods to embrace new modes of enquiry and representation. Here, I advocate we should take a step-back to explore, unravel and reconstruct these novel modes of enquiry and representation with ‘care.’

Care is more than an activity or labour, but rather a way of interacting based on responsibility and an ongoing commitment to relate and act on human, non-human and more-than-human beings to work for equitable solutions to collective problems - such as, increasing disaster risk and vulnerability (Tronto, 1993; de la Bellacasa, 2017; Chatzidakis et al., 2020; Hobart and Kneese, 2020).

Drawing upon feminist ‘ethics of care’ scholarship, “thinking with care” would support our modes of enquiry and representation to be attentive and responsive (de la Bellacasa, 2017; 52). Notably, Foucault (1988: 328) implicates caring with a open-ended desire; “curiosity…”, he claims, “... evokes ‘care’”. Within disaster science, policy and practice, being curious would facilitate us being open to who, where, when, how and why entities, agencies and their interconnections are implicated in our research (Brannelly, 2018). “Thinking with care” would further support us in directing attention to marginalised, hidden and neglected entities and agencies (de la Bellacasa, 2017; 52). Here, care would be established as “an active process of intervening in the count of whom and what is ratified as concerned” (ibid). It would entail a committed, speculative sensitivity to discovering traces of those less able to make their stakes in the research ‘phenomena’ and in our research processes (ibid).

Similarly, developing our modes of enquiry and representation with ‘care’ would support us in comprehending research participants as ‘active co-participants’. Tronto’s (2013) conceptualisation of ‘caring with’ emphasises the importance of ‘care’ as an active relation supported by the values of responsibility, trust, solidarity and reciprocity. Ruminating on this, I see value in ‘caring with’ research participants, phenomena and processes, especially as these values - posited from ‘ethics of care’ scholarship - represent the kind of ‘care’ that is connected to collective action and positive change (Hobart and Kneese, 2020). As such, ‘care’ indeed could be approached as a “transformative ethos” within disaster science, policy and practice (de la Bellacasa, 2017; 100), supporting us in our commitments to the RADIX ‘Disaster Studies Manifesto’ and subsequent ‘Disaster Studies Accord’.

Constructing our modes of enquiry and representation with ‘care’ would additionally encourage us to ‘stay with’ the complexities that inevitably arise within the research process and the research itself (Martin et al., 2015). Speculatively, within disaster research, caring modes of enquiry and representation might support us in ‘staying with’ and including the plural, possibly contradictory, lived-experiences of beings at-risk to disaster in our research. Moreover, ‘ethics of care’ scholarship often disrupts the norms and expectations of individualism, neo-liberalisation and universalism, which see individuals as autonomous, independent, and self-responsible (Askew, 2009; Clayton et al., 2015; Cloke et al., 2017). Thus, grounding our modes of enquiry and representation with ‘care’ might assist us to ask questions of and unravel the structural processes and hegemonic discourses that interweave disaster risk (e.g. inter alia, distribution of power, social norms, healthcare systems) (e.g. Wisner et al., 2004; Cheek and Chmutina, 2021). 

To conclude, I suggest we working within disaster science, policy and practice should shift our research methodologies and methods to embrace new modes of enquiry and representation with ‘care.’ I advocate we must ask “how to care” when researching disaster (de la Bellacasa, 2011: 100), especially as we reflect upon what the RADIX ‘Disaster Studies Manifesto’ and ‘Disaster Studies Accord’ requires of us.

The following resources are useful when thinking through how ‘care’ should be employed when developing our modes of enquiry and representation in disaster research:

1.    Brannelly, T., 2018. An ethics of care research manifesto. International Journal of Care and Caring, 2(3), pp.367-378.

This article identifies a feminist ‘ethics of care’ research manifesto. This research manifesto extends recognition to responsibility, acknowledges the significance of relationships and supports knowledge production. This article also provides a brief analysis of careful research practices.

2.    Chatzidakis, A., Hakim, J., Litter, J. and Rottenberg, C., 2020. The care manifesto: The politics of interdependence. Verso Books.

This book charts a vision for a caring world. It raises important questions about care(ing) in the current day, and makes an inspiring call to action for the economy and society to be based on caring for each other and the Earth. It is an important book which serves as a great introduction into the importance of care(ing) in the highly interdependent world.

3.    Hobart, H.I.J.K. and Kneese, T., 2020. Radical care: Survival strategies for uncertain times. Social Text, 38(1), pp.1-16.

This article highlights that while the labour of caring is traditionally undervalued, it is still a key element of individual and community resilience. It presents ‘radical care’ as a vital but under-examined praxis of radical politics that provides spaces of hope in precarious times. This article concludes with critical discussion surrounding ‘solidarity not charity.’

Reference

Adey, P., Anderson, B. and Graham, S., 2015. Introduction: governing emergencies: beyond exceptionality. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(2), pp.3-17

Anderson, B. and Adey, P., 2011. Affect and security: Exercising emergency in ‘UK civil contingencies’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(6), pp.1092-1109.

Askew, L.E., 2009. ‘At home’ in state institutions: The caring practices and potentialities of human service workers. Geoforum, 40(4), pp.655-663.

Brannelly, T., 2018. An ethics of care research manifesto. International Journal of Care and Caring, 2(3), pp.367-378.

Chatzidakis, A., Hakim, J., Litter, J. and Rottenberg, C., 2020. The care manifesto: The politics of interdependence. Verso Books.

Cheek, W.W. and Chmutina, K., 2021. ‘Building Back Better’is Neoliberal Post‐Disaster Reconstruction. Disasters.

Clayton, J., Donovan, C. and Merchant, J., 2015. Emotions of austerity: Care and commitment in public service delivery in the North East of England. Emotion, Space and Society, 14, pp.24-32.

Cloke, P., May, J. and Williams, A., 2017. The geographies of food banks in the meantime. Progress in Human Geography, 41(6), pp.703-726.

de La Bellacasa, M.P., 2011. Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social studies of science, 41(1), pp.85-106.

de La Bellacasa, M.P., 2017. Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds (Vol. 41). U of Minnesota Press.

Foucault, M. and Kritzman, L., 1988. Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. Routledge.

Hobart, H.I.J.K. and Kneese, T., 2020. Radical care: Survival strategies for uncertain times. Social Text, 38(1), pp.1-16.

Martin, A., Myers, N. and Viseu, A., 2015. The politics of care in technoscience. Social Studies of Science, 45(5), pp.625-641.

Tronto, J., 1993. Moral Boundaries, a Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Routledge, New York.

Tronto, J.C., 2013. Caring democracy. In Caring Democracy. New York University Press.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis, I., 2004. At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. Routledge.