Identifying Crisis Characteristics: Cross‐Case Relevant Crisis Character Variables for Public Administrations

Abstract

In the crisis management literature, only few approaches exist that focus on cross‐case relevant crisis character variables for public administrations. In order to overcome this shortage, this paper identifies and operationalizes cross‐case relevant crisis character variables derived from crisis management literature. A quantitative analysis (clustering) of past crises in Switzerland makes the relevance of the identified variables for the characterization of crises plausible. With the determination of a range of cross‐case relevant crisis character variables and the analysis of a number of crises by quantitative methods, we chose rather unfamiliar approaches in crisis management research. Therefore, the presented research aims to stimulate a discussion among crisis management scholars about both relevant variables and suitable methods for the identification of crisis characteristics.

Editorial: The Contingency Perspective to Crisis Management

“…The crisis and disaster literature has come a long way, from a focus on unique cases with little external validity of each separate analysis, to a more encompassing approach of ‘all hazards’ and a variety of crises that reveal more patterns and common characteristics than previously acknowledged (Kalbassi, ; Topper & Lagadec, ). In addition, scholars moved from a more limited event focus to an approach that includes the accumulation of deficiencies and anomalies that precede events in the weeks, months or years prior, and they also increasingly study the psychosocial aftermath of crises (Dückers, Yzermans, Jong, & Boin, ; La Porte, ; Roux‐Dufort, ).…”

“…Rather appropriate responses are contingent upon the crisis type or task at hand. The crisis literature unfortunately does offer limited guidance in terms of distinguishing crisis types and relating those to more or less effective responses (Kalbassi, ).…”

“…从聚焦于每个不同分析都几乎没有外部合法性的独特案例，到针对“所有灾害”和一系列危机（显示出的模式和共同特征都比以往所认可的更多）的、更具包容性的措施(Kalbassi, ; Topper and Lagadec, )，危机灾害文献已经历了长久的发展。此外，学者从聚焦于限制性更多的事件，转向一种能将灾害发生前几周、几个月、几年的缺陷和异常（事件）全部积累起来应对的措施，学者还越来越多地研究危机发生后的心理社会后果(Roux‐Dufort, ; La Porte, ; Dückers et al, )。…”

“…然而由于案例研究的主导性，危机类型仍被视为一个“给定量”，而非变量。Patrick Kenis 等人 (2019)主张，危机文献应针对威胁和危机采取一个应急视角。这种应急视角认为，没有任何一个响应能完美应对威胁和危机。而适宜的响应取决于危机类型或即将到来的任务。遗憾的是，就区别危机类型，将危机类型与或多好少有效的响应相联系而言，危机文献只能提供有限的指示(Kalbassi, )。…”

“…La literatura sobre crisis y desastres ha recorrido un largo camino, desde un enfoque en casos únicos con poca validez externa de cada análisis por separado, hasta un enfoque más abarcador de "todos los peligros" y una variedad de crisis que revelan más patrones y características comunes que antes reconocido (Kalbassi, ; Topper y Lagadec, ). Además, los académicos pasaron de un enfoque de evento más limitado a un enfoque que incluye la acumulación de deficiencias y anomalías que preceden a los eventos en las semanas, meses o años anteriores, y también estudian cada vez más las consecuencias psicosociales de las crisis (Roux‐Dufort, ; La Porte, ; Dückers et al, ).…”