The organizational science of disaster/terrorism prevention and response: Theory‐building toward the future of the field

Abstract

SummaryThe organizational science of disaster and terrorism is underdeveloped. In an effort to help promote it and, based on a review of existing literature as well as lessons learned from the process of developing the special issue, two models and derived sample propositions for future research are offered. The models span multiple levels and use system, network, and identity theories to tie together key constructs. Existing conceptual views of, and research on, organizations and disaster/terrorism are considered, and missing and under-researched concepts are identified. Proposed linkages among constructs are offered to produce nomological networks for the organizational science of disaster/terrorism intended to help guide the future development of the field.

Engaging in duty of care: towards a terrorism preparedness plan

“…However, in times of terrorism, the development of social networks from the organization, IA, and IA family will moderate the stress and concern of the IA (Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008). The larger and higher the quality of the social network will directly affect the reactions of the IA and their family when terrorism occurs (James, 2011).…”

Introduction to the special issue: Terrorism, disaster, and organizational science

“…Are there sufficient similarities to the challenges that they present to organizations for it to make sense to consider them together—at least some of the time—or do they differ so much that they generally require separate treatments both scientifically and in practice? The answer I offer in my theory paper (James, 2011) is that they do have common characteristics and implications that make it sensible to consider them together, yet they also differ in some ways that are also important to consider.…”

“…All of the latter were judged by their reviewers to be substantially flawed, yielding a set of major papers on only organizations and terrorism. One conclusion I offer, therefore, is that organizational science needs to attend much more to disasters and organizations, as well as to both similarities and differences between and within the categories of terrorism and disaster (see the James theory paper, 2011).…”

“…Individual‐level constructs are clearly important to workers' and organizations' outcomes from disaster or terrorism events, and should be studied more. Organizational‐level, team‐level, and inter‐organizational level constructs and processes are also critical, though, to general organizational science knowledge (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), and relative to disaster/terrorism, in particular (James, 2011; Woolley, 2011), and should be addressed in future theories and studies on this that topic.…”

Real-time foresight — Preparedness for dynamic networks

“…Crises management is described in the practical literature as well as in disaster research and organizational planning as a linear process of different stages (Green, 2000;Pearson and Clair, 1998;James, 2011) with slightly different numbers of stages and technical terms used by different authors (Dorasamy et al, 2013). More often than not, response, recovery and preparedness (Quarantelli, 1988;Fazarmand, 2007) are agreed upon as most relevant stages.…”