Dear empty void,
I’ve had a few requests for copies of papers, and have now listed them all in the publication section. There are four new papers recently accepted or in press, with two more soon to be added. If you’d like a copy, I have put them onto ResearchGate, or simply send me an email.
1) ‘Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems’ is a paper that outlines a mixed methods approach developed for the Borderlands project I contributed to during my Post-doc at the UNESCO Centre for water law, policy and science. The paper shows how mapping, GIS, interviews, and public engagement can help chart a path through the ‘messy’ world of flood risk management.
2) ‘Towards New Disaster Governance: Subsidiarity as a Critical Tool’ is a paper that explores the idea of subsidiarity as a tool for risk management. Effectively, it is already a key tenet of risk management – though uncritically and partially. The move to decentralise and ‘downshift’ responsibility for risk management is predominantly economically-driven, though it could be said to be justified using a subsidiarity argument. This is a debatable reason, but even mores there is need to ask when, why, and how responsibility might have to course upwards (i.e., centralise). This paper analyses the risk management literature in Australia as a way of sparking a discussion.
3) ‘Disaster management culture in Bangladesh’ is a book chapter in Cultures and Disasters: Understanding Cultural Framings in Disaster Risk Reduction. Eds. F. Krüger, G. Bankoff, T. Cannon, B. Orlowski and L. F. Schipper, that engages with the ‘cultural critiques’ of risk management. Broadly, the paper tries to present and explore the disaster management culture that conditions disaster managers. Through emphasis on flood managers – as well as their world views and rationalisations – the paper suggests that there is a distinct flood management culture, but moreover that that culture is one that appropriates and utilises the cultural critique to entrench existing power relations.
4) ‘Matters of method: the paradoxes of understanding suicide’ is a beautiful and provocative paper led by Angeliki Balayannis. The paper shows how efforts to impose order on understanding suicide bound the phenomenon in such a way that the resulting knowledge is impaired. Most importantly, by developing and practicing a materialist analysis, the relations that produce prevailing knowledge-practices are made more evident, exposing linkages and actions that have significant implications for responsibility. In proposing the concept of ‘distancing-through-engagement’ we show how relations are made, unmade, and erased in ways that benefit some while disadvantaging others. Our contribution to this issue – one that currently has only minimal geographic contribution – is to show how space, mobility, and scale are critical to understanding how knowledge is bounded, and how that knowledge leads to particular interventions.