Experimental Design in Emergency- and Disaster Studies: Limitations and Potential for Future Research
Abstract as pdf
Corresponding Author:
Jörgen Sparf
Mid Sweden University Sweden
jorgen.sparf@miun.se
Author(s):
Evangelia Petridou1
1Mid Sweden University, Evangeliet.Petridou@Miun.Se, SWE
Even though experiments have been an established part of research in the social sciences and their contribution to the development of formal theory has been recognized, experimental design instruction has not been part of the curriculum, which has resulted in researchers shying away from them (Martin and Sell, 1979; Webster and Sell, 2014). In emergency and disaster studies in the social sciences in particular, recent research involving experimental design includes studies employing quasi-experimental design with a pretest- posttest design (Kalanlar, 2018; Ronan, Crellin, and Johnston, 2012), whereas Young, Greenbaum, and Dormady (2017) used experimental design to assess the influence of sex and gender in investing in resilience among business owners. The purpose of experiments is three-fold: First, a researcher may be searching for facts, aiming at isolating the cause of some observed irregularity. Such studies are often combined with observational research. Second, a researcher may want to test predictions and such studies feed back to theoretical literature. Third, experiments that are designed to closely resemble real environments have the potential to influence policymakers (Druckman, Green, Kuklinski, and Lupia, 2006; Roth, 1995). Finally, experimental research has the potential to complement ex post facto studies on disasters and extraordinary events. In this positioning paper, we outline the advantages, limitations, and potential of laboratory experiments in emergency- and disaster studies. We also address the issue of ethical research in an experimental context.
On the Epistemology of Crises and Disasters