Volume 11, Issue 3 (6-2019)
jorar 2019, 11(3): 201-213 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Asadi S, Sharghi A. Content Analysis of Post-Disaster Socio-Psychological Research Focusing on Methodology and Subject Research. jorar 2019; 11 (3) :201-213
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-556-en.html
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-556-en.html
Architecture, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (2171 Views)
INTRODUCTION: The impact of disasters on the mental and physical health of affected communities requires planning for socio-psychological recovery, recognizing various dimensions, and research on the arising issues. The present study is conducted with the aim to focus on methodological and subject research approaches in international post-disaster studies in the framework of research design, target society, and measurement of key structures, in order to identify existing research gaps in this field.
METHODS: In the present study, a purposeful post-disaster content analysis was performed quantitatively and qualitatively on socio-psychological studies in 39 journals indexed in databases. After the purposeful and specific steps, 73 studies were coded in an accurate review process, and then the codes extracted (research strategies, research project implementation, highlighted topics, sampling method, statistical population, and data collection tools) were analyzed in Excel software and presented in the form of descriptive statistics.
FINDINGS: Cross-sectional studies with quantitative strategy, random sampling method, standardized structured questionnaire, and large statistical population have the highest frequency. The predominant subjects studied on an individual scale were the individual post-disaster psychological consequences and on a collective scale were indicators associated with socio-psychological recovery.
CONCLUSION: The imbalance in the socio-psychological studies of disasters and the recovery indicators in both individual and collective scales require paying attention to the subjects related to the individual recovery and mental health and a deeper understanding of the socio-psychological consequences of disasters. In addition to the current research approaches, the investigations on the post-traumatic neuroscience will be growing in the future perspective. Expanding the scope of quantitative research and neuroscience requires standardized measurement scales in developing countries. The reliability of the study findings was 71.5%.
METHODS: In the present study, a purposeful post-disaster content analysis was performed quantitatively and qualitatively on socio-psychological studies in 39 journals indexed in databases. After the purposeful and specific steps, 73 studies were coded in an accurate review process, and then the codes extracted (research strategies, research project implementation, highlighted topics, sampling method, statistical population, and data collection tools) were analyzed in Excel software and presented in the form of descriptive statistics.
FINDINGS: Cross-sectional studies with quantitative strategy, random sampling method, standardized structured questionnaire, and large statistical population have the highest frequency. The predominant subjects studied on an individual scale were the individual post-disaster psychological consequences and on a collective scale were indicators associated with socio-psychological recovery.
CONCLUSION: The imbalance in the socio-psychological studies of disasters and the recovery indicators in both individual and collective scales require paying attention to the subjects related to the individual recovery and mental health and a deeper understanding of the socio-psychological consequences of disasters. In addition to the current research approaches, the investigations on the post-traumatic neuroscience will be growing in the future perspective. Expanding the scope of quantitative research and neuroscience requires standardized measurement scales in developing countries. The reliability of the study findings was 71.5%.
Article Type: Research article |
References
1. Sundnes KO, Birnbaum ML. Health disaster management guidelines for evaluation and research in the utstein style. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 2003; 17(3). [DOI:10.1017/S1049023X00008918]
3. Goldman E, Galea S. Mental health consequences of disasters. Annu Rev Public Health 2014; 35: 169-83. [DOI:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182435]
5. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030 [Online]. [cited 2015]; Available from: URL: https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030
6. Bolin R. Disasters and long-term recovery policy: A focus on housing and families. Review of Policy Research 1985; 4(4): 709-15. [DOI:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00319.x]
8. Leitmann J. Cities and calamities: Learning from post-disaster response in Indonesia. J Urban Health 2007; 84(3 Suppl): i144-i153. [DOI:10.1007/s11524-007-9182-6]
10. Tran TA. Developing disaster resilient housing in Vietnam: Challenges and solutions. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2015. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-26743-2]
12. Peacock WG, Dash N, Zhang Y, Van Zandt S. Post-disaster sheltering, temporary housing, and permanent housing recovery. In: Rodriguez H, Donner W, Trainor JE, Editors. Handbook of disaster research. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2017. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-63254-4_27]
14. Johnson C, Lizarralde G. Post-disaster housing and reconstruction. In: Smith SJ, Editor. International encyclopedia of housing and home. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2012. p. 340-6. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-08-047163-1.00046-1]
16. Duyne Barenstein JE. Towards sustainable post-disaster housing and building technologies: Issues and challenges with special reference to India. In: Bolay JC, Schmid A, Tejada G, Hazboun E, Editors. Technologies and Innovations for Development: Scientific Cooperation for a Sustainable Future. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. [DOI:10.1007/978-2-8178-0268-8_7]
18. Wardak ZS, Coffey V, Trigunarsyah B. Critical factors for successful housing reconstruction projects following a major disaster. Proceedings of the 19th Triennial CIB World Building Congress; 2013 May 5-9; Brisbane, Queensland.
19. Aquilino MJ. Beyond Shelter: Architecture for crisis. London, UK: Thames & Hudson; 2011.
20. Gerhart J, Daphna C, Hobfoll ES. Traumatic stress in overview: Definition, context, scope, and long-term outcomes. In: Cherry KE, Editor. Traumatic stress and long-term recovery: Coping with disasters and other negative life events. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2015. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-18866-9_1]
22. Donner W, Diaz W. Methodological issues in disaster research. In: Rodriguez H, Donner W, Trainor JE, Editors. Handbook of disaster research. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2017. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-63254-4_15]
24. Bolin R, Stanford L. The Northridge earthquake: Community? Based Approaches to Unmet Recovery Needs. Disasters 1998; 22(1): 21-38. [DOI:10.1111/1467-7717.00073]
26. Lindell MK, Prater CS. Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters. ASCE; 2003. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:4(176)]
28. Paton D. Disaster resilient communities: Developing and testing an all-hazards theory. IDRiM Journal 2013; 3(1): 1-17. [DOI:10.5595/idrim.2013.0050]
30. Edgeley CM, Paveglio TB. Community recovery and assistance following large wildfires: The case of the Carlton Complex Fire. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2017; 25: 137-46. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.009]
32. Norris FH, Friedman MJ, Watson PJ, Byrne CM, Diaz E, Kaniasty K. 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature,
33. Psychiatry 2002; 65(3): 207-39. [DOI:10.1521/psyc.65.3.207.20173]
35. Mezinska S, Kakuk P, Mijaljica G, Waligora M, O'Mathuna DP. Research in disaster settings: A systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines. BMC Med Ethics 2016; 17(1): 62. [DOI:10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7]
37. Drabek TE. Methodology of studying disasters: Past patterns and future possibilities. American Behavioral Scientist 1970; 13(3): 331-43. [DOI:10.1177/000276427001300303]
39. Mileti D. Sociological method and disaster research. In: Dynes RR, De Marchi B, Pelanda C, Editors. Sociology of disasters: Contribution of sociology to disaster research. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli; 1987.
40. Stallings RA. Methods of disaster research. Bloomington, Indiana: Xlibris Corporation; 2003.
41. Iribarren J, Prolo P, Neagos N, Chiappelli F. Post-traumatic stress disorder: Evidence-based research for the third millennium. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2005; 2(4): 503-12. [DOI:10.1093/ecam/neh127]
43. Indah R. Probing problems: Dilemmas of conducting an ethnographic study in a disaster-affected area. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2018; 31: 799-805. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.07.025]
45. Mcfarlane A, Norris H. Definitions and concepts in disaster research. In: Norris FH, Editor. Methods for disaster mental health research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006.
46. Yasman I, Davis J. Architecture and reconstruction planning. Trans. Fallahi A. Tehran, Iran: Shahid Beheshti University Press; 2006.
47. Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery. Disaster risk assessment [Online]. [cited 2010]; Available from: URL: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/disaster/2Disaster%20Risk%20Reduction%20-%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf
48. Fritz CE, Danzig ER, Killian LM, Raker JW, Clifford RA, Perry SE, et al. An introduction to methodological problems of field studies in disasters: A special report. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council; 1956.
49. Galea S, Nandi A, Vlahov D. The epidemiology of post-traumatic stress disorder after disasters. Epidemiol Rev 2005; 27(1): 78-91. [DOI:10.1093/epirev/mxi003]
51. Kulka RA, Schlenger WE. Survey research and field designs for the study of posttraumatic stress disorder. In: Wilson JP, Raphael B, Editors. International handbook of traumatic stress syndromes. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1993. p. 145-55. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4615-2820-3_12]
53. Amaratunga N, Haigh R, Ingirige B. Post-disaster housing reconstruction in Sri Lanka: What methodology? SAGE Open 2015; 5(3): 1-7. [DOI:10.1177/2158244015583072]
55. Holsti OR. Content Analysis. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E, Editors. The handbook of social psychology. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; 1968.
56. Sandelowski M. Theory unmasked: the uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 1993; 16(3): 213-8. [DOI:10.1002/nur.4770160308]
58. Roudini J, Khankeh HR, Witruk E. Disaster mental health preparedness in the community: A systematic review study. Health Psychol Open 2017; 4(1): 2055102917711307. [DOI:10.1177/2055102917711307]
60. Momeni Rad A, Aliabadi K, Fardanesh H, Mazini N. Qualitative content analysis in research tradition: Nature, stages and validity of the results. Educational Measurement 2013; 14(4): 187-222. [In Persian].
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
