Towards a liberatory pedagogy of disaster risk reduction among built environment educators

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to enhance the understanding of what is being taught – and how – to future built environment (BE) professionals in higher education (HE) BE curricular in the context of disaster risk reduction (DRR).Design/methodology/approachReflecting on the results of an extensive survey carried out among 21 BE educators representing 14 countries, the pedagogies used to educate tomorrow’s BE professionals about DRR-related subjects are explored.FindingsThe vast majority of HE training for the future BE professionals focuses on hazards as a “problem” posed by nature – something that can be “solved” through a technical solution. Little reflection is required as to the social implications of DRR “solutions”, and knowledge too often remains analytical and distant from any sort of lived experience. Whilst many DRR-related subjects introduce the ideas of human-centric DRR, there is still a disconnection between technical engineering subjects and broader social science subjects. This is a missed opportunity for students acquiring technical knowledge to reflect on and engage with a wider societal context.Originality/valueThe paper draws on the liberative pedagogies of Paulo Freire, bell hooks and others to engage BE educators in collectively drawing on philosophies and practices that emphasise holistic ways of knowing and learning and encourage the broader consideration of non-technical ideas. This kind of DRR pedagogy is required if the society is to collectively strive for a BE that enhances equity and well-being, while avoiding the creation of risk through development and redevelopment.

Disasters “Through the looking glass”

“…The residential location of these communities causes them to be disproportionately exposed to environmental risks (Bullard, 2008), including pollution, brownfields and flood zones. Low-income a n d r a c i a l i z e d c o m m u n i t i e s a r e von Meding, 2022). As a result, disaster risks are often understood as measurable and potentially controllable matters since they are connected to physical phenomena and are expected to be objectively quantifiable and assessable (Chipangura et al, 2016).…”

“…A positivist perspective holds that there is an objective reality and that knowledge manifests itself as something observable and measurable, and this is also applied in the social sciences by rational and neutral researchers (Crotty, 1998). This idea of value-free empirical data has thoroughly permeated disaster studies (Chmutina and von Meding, 2022). As a result, disaster risks are often understood as measurable and potentially controllable matters since they are connected to physical phenomena and are expected to be objectively quantifiable and assessable (Chipangura et al , 2016).…”

“…This can create difficulties when ideologies come into conflict. In disaster studies, a divide of sorts exists between researchers with a foundation in natural sciences and engineering, and those in social sciences and humanities (Chmutina and Von Meding, 2022). The technological determinism of the former is broadly critiqued by the latter, but researchers in science and engineering often believe themselves to be the vanguard of scientific progress and rigor.…”

Why are you in disaster studies? Liberating future scholars from oppressive disaster science

“…Improving the peer review process in disaster studies is another (Chmutina et al ., 2022). Questioning how the DRR curriculum can be liberated is also imperative (Chmutina and von Meding, 2022). It is essential to discuss these aspects with scientists but also with students initiating disaster studies.…”

Guest editorial: Introduction to the special issue on “conversations with disasters: deconstructed”

“…It is “how we learn to be human” (Waisbord, 2020, p. 450). The dialogue is never finished and always open – and this principle is critical for disaster studies as there is never one solution that fits all (Chmutina and von Meding, 2022).…”