Experts and Decision Makers in Crisis Situations

Rosenthal, Uriel; Hart, Paul’t

doi:10.1177/107554709101200402

Cited by 56 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15 In crises, experts often disagree among themselves regarding the relative merits of situational assessments and proposed courses of action. As a result, emergency managers should be organizationally and psychologically prepared for such disagreement (Rosenthal and 't Hart, 1991).…”

Section: Sense-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crisis management revisited: A new agenda for research, training and capacity building within Europe

Hart¹,

Sundelius²

2013

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PreprintThis is the submitted version of a paper published in Cooperation and Conflict.Citation for the original published paper (version of record):'t Hart, P., Sundelius, B. (2013) Crisis management revisited: A new agenda for research, training and capacity building within Europe. Cooperation and Conflict, 48(3): 444-461Access to the published version may require subscription. The strategic use of fear has become part and parcel of our world (Klein, 2007). So has the institutional expansion of state and international apparatuses devoted to 'managing' known and potential security risks. The Department of Homeland Security was created by President Bush in the most significant reform of the U.S. national security apparatus since 1947. This new societal security provider has grown into the third largest US government body after the Departments of 1 The authors would like to thank Fredrik Bynander, Eric Stern, and Stephanie Young for their valuable contributions.

show abstract

Section: Sense-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crisis management revisited: A new agenda for research, training and capacity building within Europe

Hart¹,

Sundelius²

2013

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The issue of sharing knowledge between both organizations is known as a main contributor of the difficulties linked to ADIAM use (French et al, 2007). In addition to differences in their respective frames of references (Mitroff and Shrivastava, 1984), difficult conditions such as urgent need of actions, uncertainty, ambiguity and stress can also impact the boundary between them (Lagadec, 1991(Lagadec, , 1997Rosenthal and Hart, 1991). An important contributor of difficulty deals with the crossing of role specifications: it is possible that crises contexts lead experts to move into decision making roles and/or decision makers to give too much leeway to scientific advisors, forgetting that decision is the result of the consideration of multiple factors.…”

Section: The Use Of Adiam Systems At the Boundary Between Scientific mentioning

confidence: 99%

Atmospheric dispersion and impact modeling systems: How are they perceived as support tools for nuclear crises management?

Benamrane

Boustras

2015

Safety Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A crisis is an unexpected, low probability, uncertain, unpractised event with life and death consequences under time pressure with potentially irreversible decisions (Rosenthal and 't Hart 1991, Pearson and Clair 1998, Turoff et al 2004, McKinney 2007. A crisis typically unfolds as a person has an intention, takes action and misunderstands the world.…”

Section: Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

Crisis IT design implications for high risk systems: systems, control and information propositions

McKinney

2011

Behaviour & Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The systems view is presented as a complement to the more traditional scientific approach to help reduce and mitigate risk in high risk systems. Implications for this systemic approach are described, principally in the areas of control and information. Most generally, we investigate how high risk systems use information to maintain control, and how IT systems should be designed to support this activity. Two variations in the systems view -the objective and constructive -are distilled and compared, and for each, the implications for crisis IT systems design are discussed. The limitations of the two variations of the systems view are presented, as is a brief annotated bibliography for further reading about the systems view.

show abstract

Experts and Decision Makers in Crisis Situations

Cited by 56 publications

References 21 publications

Crisis management revisited: A new agenda for research, training and capacity building within Europe

Crisis management revisited: A new agenda for research, training and capacity building within Europe

Atmospheric dispersion and impact modeling systems: How are they perceived as support tools for nuclear crises management?

Crisis IT design implications for high risk systems: systems, control and information propositions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About