Higher Education as Partner in Disaster Response
might make great progress in creating positive and dependable relationships with their local community, thus building a level of trust that will enable them to work well together when disaster strikes. In addition, developing strong relationships between campus administration and community service offices (because they are often the ones designated to handle response efforts) would also contribute to an ability to adaptively respond; administrators need to trust that community service staff members will make good decisions when empowered to do so, thus enabling them to let go of restrictions when it becomes necessary. Likewise, community service staff members need to trust that administrators will come through with the resources and support when those things become necessary. As was demonstrated in the interviews conducted for this study, intentional reflection on campus response after an event can also provide valuable insight for future preparation.
Table 1: Key action steps to improve campus ability to respond to community disaster Category Results logistical and concrete steps to prepare for disaster response.
Process campus culture and “ways of doing”
Limitations and Opportunities for Further Study This study utilized a narrative inquiry approach with a case study involving four campuses, and was specific to one event. The number of cases was small, and narrative inquiry means that you are, to a large extent, trusting one person’s interpretation (or story) of the event, even with careful triangulation and member checking. As such, like most qualitative research, these findings cannot be presented as generalizable to all incidences of disaster response. Further research on how campuses have responded to similar events could help to corroborate or contradict these findings. In addition, the use of the promising practices suggested in the conclusion by campuses that take responsive action in the future could help to “test” the theoretical implications of these stories. Furthermore, my own reflexive bias can also be identified as a limitation. My ability to set aside my own experiences in order to subjectively interpret the stories of my interviewees can only go so far. Further research conducted by scholars not intimately involved with a particular event or response process could help to add some level of objectivity to the findings, though interpretations of stories can never be truly objective. In addition, there may be some specificity to these findings based on the type of disaster studied (e.g., a localized flooding event as the result of a natural disaster). Replication of this type of study for a different type of natural or—especially—a man-made disaster could help to further illuminate promising practices.
Relationship quality and extent of relationships between key individuals and groups
Action Planning: Create an emergency management planning team or advisory committee, ensure that community response planning is included in their charge, and ensure that executive-level support for this group is strong. Responsibility: Designate key offices that will take leadership in the event of a disaster in the local community. Resources: Pre-identify resources (both human and financial) that may be necessary in the event of a community-based disaster (e.g., an office to coordinate response, transportation funds, safety equipment, food and water, etc.) and devise a flexible plan to make them available. First-responders: Identify organized groups on campus as good candidates for early involvement (e.g., sports teams, ROTC, campus rescue groups, etc.); consider providing relevant training and preparation for these groups and their advisers on a biannual basis (to account for student turnover). Individual roles: Encourage campus members who will likely play a part in response to reflect on and plan for how they would handle such an event; workshops and campus-wide discussions can help to support such reflection. Culture of response: Ask whether your campuses have a “tradition” or established way of responding to immediate needs in the community; if not, explore ways to build such processes, to enable faculty, staff, and students to become more practiced at responsive service; this could include faculty and departmental training in “responsive” service learning. Contingencies to hierarchy: If your campus typically relies on hierarchical systems to make decisions, consider hypothetical, planned alternatives to decision-making processes. For example, if a key individual is not available, who are the next two people in line with authority to make a decision? Engendering flexibility (within reason): While campus systems are in place for a reason (e.g., risk management, fiscal responsibility), consider how and whether they could be more flexible during a disaster, and whether campus policies should be adapted or revised to prepare for an event of this nature. Internal: Create time for campus offices that would likely work together in response efforts to get to know and trust each other before such an event occurs. This could occur through a planning committee but could also emphasize other ways of working together on a normal basis such that trust is built beyond common membership on a committee. In particular, community engagement offices that have little communication with campus administration and the President would do well to improve that relationship. External: Include community organizations and leaders who would likely be key contacts in disaster response in campus-planning conversations. In addition, campuses can strengthen their relationships with these groups by partnering on nonemergency community initiatives so that trust and comfort are established. External relationship building should also include nearby campuses, such that response can be coordinated and collaborative.
Conclusion “Facilitative leadership” practices focus on analyzing the success of any initiative not just through results (i.e., the accomplishment of the task or achievement of the goal), but through an analysis of results, process (i.e., how the work gets done, how it is designed and managed, and how it is measured and evaluated), and relationships (i.e., the quality of one’s experience in relating to colleagues, customers, and the organization, including the level of trust and respect).42 This model does well in illustrating the components of disaster response illuminated in these qualitative interviews. Disaster planning and response can be more successful if designed and evaluated not only based on the tasks- or results-oriented concerns, but also on how such tasks are performed (process), and on developing collaborative and trusting relationships that will 67