How to Understand Social Theories: A Guide to the Students

 

Many of us became scared to read social theories. They tend to reflect their perception as- social theories are too complicated to learn and understand. The fact is that we always seek for a 'readymade' and 'simplified' form of the theoretical versions. This attempt prejudices an 'oversimplified' canvas of the theories that take us far from the 'texts' and 'contexts' of the theories we want to learn. First of all there are no shortcuts to understand social theories. We have to love it and live it.

During teaching, for the convenience of understanding of the theories to the students, we have to simplify it and taking our classes from our 'own' understanding through different teaching-learning methods. I apologize to say that we are just translating the statements what the theoreticians articulated in their theories to make a very oversimplified ‘meaning’ just to be succeed in your examinations. We provide different 'handouts' to our students from different secondary sources-journal, books, and encyclopedias. I know that in an academic class we have a pressure of time constrain to complete the syllabi within the stipulated time frame, but, as the time goes our memories fades out and we posit ourselves to the margin of our understanding of so called 'informative' type of theoretical understanding. 

The main task is to develop 'CONCEPTS' on theories we want to learn. I am trying to present five steps to understand social theories. But mind it- there is no shortcut. The steps are-

1.     Be steady and relax to open a text on a theory you want to learn. Motivate yourself that you can understand the meaning of the concerned theory. Yes you can. It would better that you try first to read any theory of your choice before attaining any class on it.

Any theoretician prefers to reflect their own understanding of reality and its relation to the other components of the society and cultures to write any statements that is contextualized by their research and then it became a theory. The influences of other theories, time, and the life and living of a particular theoretician will be obvious to their theories. So we have to learn their biography and influences of other theories and theoreticians to understand the conditions of ‘production’ of a theory.  This process will introduce us with multiple theories, vocabularies, and diversified styles and art of writing about issues of societies and cultures, and, at the same time motivate us to go ‘in-depth’ to the series of interrelated concepts to unearth the ‘meaning’ and ‘essence’ of  a particular theory. We have to practice it multiple times of our choice and interests and you will feel good that you now know too many ‘terms’, name of many theories related to your particular search, and you find that, in every time the meaning of same statements are changing. This is what- actually you have to start to play with the theories rather to burden it. Write every time what you read about a theory and try to link the ideas you have gain from your reading of the theory/theories with your everyday living experiences. Do not think too much; rather focus on your conscious mind of writings and linking process. Make this practice to your habits and gradually you will love it like puzzle solving.  Since you practice this process one thing you have to keep in mind- Not to judge yourself and anyone’s statements as good or bad, right or wrong; because all these are products of reality and time. All you learn by this practice will make you strong, confidant and determinant to opine about the theories and to begin interactions on that with others to enrich further.

2.     Make a team with your friends and/or seniors (if possible) to exchange ideas about a theory. This would be great for you. If all of the team members are going the step-1, I have mentioned, then fixed a date at least once a week to discuss about a particular theory. All the members should have prepared for the dates and interaction. It is not a one-way process. Make yourself free to discuss the theory you choose. Keep away all the shyness from you, just feel free to converse. This will make you mature in presenting yourself with a picture of a theory to the others; as well as you will feel that many of your doubts are clear up through this process of interaction.

3.     Try to record (if permissible) a class when the teacher is teaching upon a theory. This practice will make a trio among you, your teacher, and the recorder. To record a class, please take the consent of your teacher and tell her/him freely why you are recording the class. The recorded version will help you at home while practice and, you will feel your teacher is always with you. Now if your teacher gives you the permission to record her/his discussion in the class and beyond, just click your reorder on and concentrate on the class. Take running notes, look at carefully what and how your teacher is making a theoretical discussion. Raise questions till you are not satisfied of your quarries. Follow the instructions of your teachers to better understand the theory she/he is teaching. Follow every reference your teacher cited to you to understand better. Keep your interactions ‘on’ to the teachers who are the best guide to you, because she/he knows your impulses and sensitivity very well.

4.     Ensure the practice to go through the ‘original’ writings of a theoretician rather than any text books. Text books obviously help you to understand a theory in a simplified manner, but maintaining habits to read the ‘original’ content makes you healthy to not be too oversimplified into scientific discussions.

5.     Take the opportunity to listen online classes or speeches by other notable figures of the field that are easily available in the virtual daises. This will be another version to help you to understand the theory you targeted for.

This content will help you to learn social theories steadily. So, why to wait? Start now, and delete all the fears and phobia from your mental inbox.

Disaster Anthropology

 

In the article Anthropological Research on Hazards and Disasters, Anthony Oliver-Smith stated that “Recent perspectives in anthropological research define a disaster as a process/event involving the combination of a potentially destructive agent(s) from the natural and/or technological environment and a population in a socially and technologically produced condition of vulnerability” (Oliver-Smith, 1996, p.303). That indicates a view to understand disaster as a process that combines the source agent(s) in one hand and human population with its social and technological vulnerabilities on the other (Bankoff, 2007). Addressing disaster in terms of the source agent is a focus on the natural hazards (like- earthquakes, tornados, famine and floods) and  its impact to unfold the process associated with the target agent, is reflected in the disciplinary understandings of Geography and other geophysical sciences, like- Geology, Volcanology, Hydrology and Geomorphology (Mercer, Kelman, Lioyd and Pearson, 2008; Perry, 2007). 

Contrastingly, voluminous sociological and anthropological researches on the adaptive strategies of the societies in stressful and hazardous environments reflect that, the source of hazard(s) is not necessarily present in the natural environment; rather they are controlled by the social, economic and political forces to a given context (Vayda and Mckay, 1975; Torry, 1979). Quarantelli (2005) argued that the study on disasters does not mean the exclusive study of hazard; rather contemporary disciplinary understanding of disaster shows that the meaning of disaster is socially constructed and is clearly a social issue as opposed to the term, ‘hazard’, a natural agency like- flood, famine and earthquake.

The emergence of new form of hazard and rapidly changing human-environmental relations and conditions of the globe, leads multiple meanings of disaster to the researchers of the concerned disciplines and offers the definitional debate over the issue (Oliver-Smith, 1996; Mustafa, 2005). Any government organization develops ‘mandated’ definitions of disaster to indicate and determine the boundaries of emergency management and response (Perry, 2007; Buckle, 2005); the emergency managers hold a specific view on what constitutes a disaster (Britton, 1986), whereas the social scientists perceive disaster as a situation or an event that offers a temporary or permanent threat to the social order or to a given normative social system (Wallace, 1956; Fritz, 1961; Stallings, 1998). A number of definitions then should be taken into account to obtain the meaning of disaster with the consideration of the ‘contextuality’ of definitions (Perry, 2007).

The specific purpose, contexts and interests of the definer or researcher generates a range of definitions of disaster in disciplinary terms. David Alexender (2005) identified a class of disciplines (Geography, Anthropology, Sociology, Developmental Studies, Health Sciences, Geo-Physical Sciences and Social Psychology) that never addressed the definition of disaster before studying it. So, the empirical experiences and the context(s) to approach such a social issue like disaster, acts as the ground to define it. The empirical experiences of disaster as a social phenomenon, Britton (2005) opined, should be understood as a unique identity compare to, the existing notion of disaster.

As per as the ‘empericality’ and ‘contextuality’ of disaster is concerned in scientific practices and explanations of the phenomenon, like-disaster, the scholars show a high degree of definitional debate over the issue; that reflects the lack of consensus to a universally accepted definition of disaster (Cutter, 2005). Trying for consensus of the definition of disaster then, may not worth thinking; rather, Jigyasu (2005) argued that, the researcher should clarify and address their view to the area of thinking (either on ‘disaster research’ or ‘disaster management’); that may help to the new comer in disaster study to get a clear view of the disaster research, which alternatively means research on disaster, research in disaster or research on disaster management.

The definitional debate of the term, ‘disaster’ necessitates the clarification in different perspectives. Cutter (2005) argued that the researchers use a number of ‘terms’ (like- hazards, risks, disasters, and vulnerability) to indicate, reflect and explain the nature and source of the agent(s) (man-made or natural), their threat and impact to denote human inability for facing the ‘unexpected’.  She further clarified each of the terms to differentiate the degree of application of the terms in contexts. The ontological debate on disaster is a continuous episode that greets all the alternative usage of the term (Perry, 2007). 

Uniqueness of anthropology than other social science disciplines interested in disaster studies is that- it seeks to explore disaster in totality, includes environmental, biological and socio-cultural planes together to understand the process of disaster (Hoffman, 2010). Disaster is located at the interface of culture, society and environment that offers anthropology to account the phenomena as a major research area (Reddy, 2011). Disasters as research area promote a real challenge for anthropology, as Fjord and Manderson (2009) argued, “Few research topics provide more daunting challenges than disaster studies because of the magnitude of what the discipline encompasses: the diversity of natural and human-made hazards, the spectrum of social and physical geographies, the ethno-historical, sociopolitical, and economic factors that locate specific circumstances in larger global climatic, geophysical and social processes” (Fjord and Manderson, 2009, p. 64). The account of disaster studies are so vast and varied (Oliver-Smith and Hoffman, 2002), it is very difficult to systematically arrange the approaches in a chronological paradigm. 

Anthropological studies on disasters were initiated in almost 1950s (Drabek, 1986). The nature of anthropological inquiry of disaster then was atheoretical and totally uninvolved to the definitional issue, rather the prime focus on the responses of the ‘traditional’ communities to the specific events (Oliver-Smith, 1999). Anthropology during 1940s and 1950s contributed a very little to the study of disasters as a process and obtained the meaning of disaster as something that disrupts human ‘normal’ living (Anderskov, 2010).

 The adaptive strategies of the societies in stressful and hazardous environments were taken to account in a structural-functional and particularistic ideology to indicate the disruption disaster represents to a normal daily life (Torry, 1979; Anderskov, 2010). The era is known as ‘Anthropology of Suffering’ (Davis, 1992). The studies on adaptive strategies lead the question of adaptation to hazard and disasters is paralleled by a similar concern about the long term sustainability of resource(s) use along with present levels of environmental degradation and pollution (Oliver-smith, 1999). However, the studies on adaptive strategies guided a new pathway to anthropological research regarding disaster. The new trend showed that any disaster involves loss of property and means of livelihood, calls for a change in the modes of subsistence and the social organization that regulates them (Firth, 1959). The era reflects an idea that disaster as a social phenomenon disrupts and constitutes cultural meaning(s) to a given cultural milieu.

The trend of viewing disaster as a factor of social change emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. In this era, disasters have been sensed as a catalyst factor for social change (Anderskov, 2010). Anthony Oliver-Smith (1996) commented that, “Disasters can also be important factors in social and cultural change. In the sense that a disaster damages or destroys a society’s ability to provide, however differentially, for the needs of its members, new adjustments or arrangements may have to be formulated for it to continue functioning. Thus, disaster research inevitably addresses the issue, or at least the potential, of change (Oliver-Smith, 1996). A good number of anthropological studies in this phase were conducted with a deep attention to long term social change as major implication of disaster (Oliver-Smith, 1996; Minnis, 1985).

At the very beginning of 1980s, disaster studies in anthropology shifted its new theoretical turn to the study of political-economic perspectives of disaster (Oliver-Smith, 2002). The ideologies of structural Marxism and political economy lead the pathway of introducing the new pathway to the disaster research (Anderskov, 2010). Criticizing the disaster researches on 1960s and 1970s, disaster anthropologists of this era claimed a detailed theoretical scrutiny of how societies have been evolved with the rise of capitalism and/or modern state structures (Anderskov, 2010; Ortner, 1984). Oliver-Smith (1996) mentioned in this context- “Since the early 1980s, many anthropological and cultural geographers, following the growth of both cultural ecological and political economic perspectives in those disciplines, began to reconsider disasters less as the result of geo-physical extremes such as storms, earthquakes, avalanches, droughts, etc and more as functions of an ongoing social order, of this order’s structure of human environmental relations, and of larger framework of historical and structural processes, such as colonialism and underdevelopment, that have shaped these phenomena” (Oliver-Smith, 1996, p.314). The phase of disaster research invited the anthropologists from third-world to rethink about disasters from political-economic perspectives, based on the correlations between disaster proneness, chronic malnutrition, low income and famine potential, that establishes disaster as embedded in its social root than natural magnitude (Hewitt, 1983; Oliver-Smith, 2002; Anderskov, 2010).

Power as a central theme to disaster studies in anthropology emerged in the mid of 1980s (Oliver-Smith, 2002). The era constituted the notion that disaster is a context that helps to understand the power relation and arrangements within a social order (Oliver-Smith, 1996). Two related themes were mainly considered in this regard- (a) disaster as opportunity/cause for political socialization and mobilization, and (b) disaster caused alterations with the state (Oliver-Smith, 1996; Johnston and Schulte, 1992). Disaster can transform political consciousness, dissolve power arrangements, creates political solidarity, activism, new agendas and may develop new power relations (Johnston and Schulte, 1992; Oliver-Smith, 1992). Hewitt (1983) labelling the traditional disaster researches as the ‘dominant view’ (form the perspectives of the policy makers and government functioning), criticized them to focus too much on the nature and cutting off the everyday life experiences and ordinary human activity from disaster issues; suggested to take account on the human ‘lived’ experiences and senses to understand a disaster. The transformation of cultural meaning(s) due to disaster as a central meaning shifted the focus of contemporary anthropological research to the study of the crisis and everyday life (Winchester, 1981). Individual’s social position and response are taken into account as the unit of study of disasters like wars and famine (Moser, 1989).

The appeal to interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary attempts of disaster studies find its logic that no one discipline can provide all the answers, solutions or what we think relevant to understand a disaster in totality (Quarantelli, 2005). Considering the complexities of the disaster in the face of rapid globalization and industrialization, integration of different disciplinary interpretation of disasters should be taken into account (Reddy, 2011).

Following Hewitt’s notion of disaster research, Blaikie et.al (1994) developed interdisciplinary research approach in anthropology to study disaster. Disasters are now considered as socially constructed phenomena and are clearly found in its social, economic and political realm (Anderskov, 2004; O’Keefe, Westgate and Wisner, 1976). The current research trends in anthropology focuses on the concept of vulnerability in terms of the social, economic and political conditions which differently affects individuals and groups, as well as the overall capacity of the community to absorb shock and recover (O’Keefe, Westgate and Wisner, 1976). The ‘shock’ related to a disaster and its system of recovery, needs an interdisciplinary attention. There have been many research efforts of using social psychological theories to unify and expand current conceptions of access in ethnographic research-the process by which researchers gather data via interpersonal relationships with participants/informants (Harrington, 2003). A number of researchers have begun to recognize the increasing importance of broader anthropological and social psychological issues in the study of humans in extreme environments (Johnson and Finney, 1986; Harrison and Connors, 1984; Pierce 1985). In addition, the social- psychological issues of reactions (like- fear, anxiety, anger, impatience, irritability, grief, shame, guilt, stress, trauma, etc.) to disasters and mechanisms of resilience may be an effective means for contemporary anthropological researches, theory building and policy making on well-being (Greene, 2003; Johnson and Finney, 1986).

Disasters in the contemporary fast and changing world are more complex and severe (Cutter, 2005). As a social phenomenon, disaster calls for a serious, systematic and theoretical social science perspectives (Reddy, 2011). Though, sociology has contributed systematic and extensive study on disasters for last five decades, anthropology is not yet rich in this area of research, specially in theoretical issues (Oliver-Smith, 2002; Quarantelli, 2005). But, the scholars from different subfields of anthropology are gaining their interests in disaster researches now days (Hoffman, 2010; Reddy, 2011).  Hoffman (2010) mentioned that medical anthropology reflects the researches on the health impact of disasters, political anthropology on political ecology issues, like- hegemony, neoliberalism and environmental advocacy, environmental anthropology on disaster impacts on the communities depended upon natural resources and psychological anthropology on victim liminality and Post Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD). The disaster issues in medical, political, environmental and psychological anthropology shows a high degree of interdisciplinary trends of research, as Reddy (2011) rightly mentioned that- anthropology can immensely contribute to disaster discourse due to its multidimensionality and methodological rigor.

Bibliography:

• Aguilar, B. H., & Rivera, N. R. 2016. he production of vulnerability to landslides: the risk habitus  in two landslide-prone neighborhoods in Teziutlan, Mexico. Investigaciones Geograicas, Vol. 90, pp. 7-27.
• Alexander D. E. 2005. An Interpretation of Disaster in Terms of Changes in Culture, Society and International Relations. In Ronald W. Perry and E. L. Quarantelli (Eds.), What Is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions, 25-38. USA: Xlibris Press.
• Adams, V., Kaufman, S. R., Hattum, T. V. and Moody, S. 2011. Aging Disaster: Mortality, Vulnerability, and Long-Term Recovery among Katrina Survivors. Medical Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness, 30(3), 247-270.
• Alwang, J., Siegel, P.B., and Jorgensen, S.L. 2001. Vulnerability: A View from Different Discipline. Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, 1-42. Social Protection Unit. Human Development Network. The World Bank.
• Anderskov, C. 2010. Disaster and Anthropology. Accessed on April 24, 2012. Available at: http://www.anthrobase.com/Txt/A/Anderskov_C_03.htm.
• Baker, S.M. 2009. Vulnerability and Resilience in Natural Disasters: A Marketing and Public Policy Perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1), 114-123.
• Bankoff, G. 2007. Comparing Vulnerabilities: Toward Charting an Historical Trajectory of Disasters. Historical Social Research, 32(3), 103-114.
• Bartlett, S. 2008. Climate change and urban children: impacts and implications for adaptation in low- and middle income countries. Environment & Urbanization, 20(2), 501-519.
• Barton, A. H. 2005. Disaster and Collective Stress. In R. W. Perry and E. L. Quarantelli (Eds.), What Is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions, 125-152. USA: Xlibris Press.
• Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. 1994. At Risk: Natural hazards, People’s vulnerability, and disasters. London. Routledge.
• Bledsoe, C.H. and Sow, P. 2011. Back to Africa: Second Chances for the Children of West African Immigrants. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 747-762.
• Bolin, B. 2007. Race, Class, Ethnicity and Disaster Vulnerability. In H. Rodriguez, E. L. Quarantelli and R. R. Dynes (Eds.) Handbook of Disaster Research, 113-129.
• Bolin, R. and Stanford, L. 1998. The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster. New York: Routledge.
• Boyden, J., and Mann, G. 2005. Children’s Risk, Resilience, and Coping in Extreme Situations. Ungar, 1, 3-25.
• Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. London : Routledge.
• Bourdieu, P. 1989. Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 14-25.
• Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, p. 119, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Britton, N. R. 1986. Developing an understanding of disaster. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 22, 254–272.
• Buckle, P. 2005. Mandated definitions, local knowledge and complexity. In R. W. Perry & E. L. Quarantelli (Eds.), What is a disaster? : New answers to old questions?, 173–200. USA: Xlibris Press.
• Carter, M., & May, J.1999. Poverty, Livelihood and Class in Rural South Africa. World Development, 27, 1-20.
• Chambers, R.1989. Vulnerability, Coping and Policy. IDS Bulletin, 20(2), 1-7.
• Comfort, L., Wisner, B., Cutter, S., Pulwarty, R., Hewitt, K., Oliver-Smith, A., Wiener, J., Fordham, M., Peacock, W. and Krimgold, F. 1999. Reframing disaster policy. Environmental Hazards, 1, 39-44.
• Cook, S. 2002. From Rice Bowl to Safety Net: Insecurity and Social Protection during China’s Transition. Development Policy Review, 20(5), 615-635.

 

• Cutter, S.L. 2005. Pragmatism and Relevance: A Response to Wolf R. Dombrowsky. In R. W. Perry & E. L. Quarantelli (Eds.), What is a disaster? : New answers to old questions?, 60-78. USA: Xlibris Press.
• Cutter, S. L. 2006. Hazards, Vulnerability and Environmental Justice. London: Earthscan.
• Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B. J. and Shirley, W. L. 2003. Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242-261.
• Davidson, J. O. 2011. Moving children? Child trafficking, child migration, and child rights. Critical Social Policy, 31(3), 454-477.
• Davis, J. 1992. The Anthropology of Suffering. Journal of Refugee Studies, 5(2), 149-161.
• Dombrowsky, W. R. 2005. Not Every Move is a Step Forward: A Critique of David Alexender, Susan L. Cutter, Rohit Jigyasu and Neil Britton. In R. W. Perry and E. L. Quarantelli (Eds.), What Is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions, 79-96. USA: Xlibris Press.

 

• Drabek, T. E. 1986. Human System Responses to Disaster. New York: Springer-Verlag.

 

• Ehrenreich, J.H. 2001. Coping With Disasters, A Guidebook to Psychological Intervention. New York: A Guide Manual.
• Eisenman, D.P., Cordasco, K.M., Asch, S., Golden, J.F and Glik, D. 2007. Disaster Planning and Risk Communication with Vulnerable Communities: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. American Journal of Public Health, 97(1), 109-115.
• Enarson, E., & Morrow, B. (Eds.), 1998. The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes.  Westport. CT: Praeger.
• Few, R., and Tran, P. G. 2010. Climatic hazard, health risk and response in Vietnam: Case studies on social dimensions of vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 20, 529-538.
• Firth, R. 1959. Social Change in Tikopia. London: Allen and Unwin.
• Fjord, L. and Manderson, L. 2009. Anthropological Perspectives on Disasters and Disability: An Introduction. Human Organization, 68(1), 64-72.
• Fothergill, A. 1996. Gender, risk, and disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14, 33–56.
• Fothergill, A. 1999. Women’s roles in a disaster. Applied Behavioral Science Review, 7, 125-143.
• Fothergill, A. and Peek, L.A. 2004. Poverty and Disaster in the United States: A Review of Recent Sociological Findings. Natural Hazards, 32, 89-110.
• Fritz, C. E. 1961. Disasters. In R. K. Merton and R. A. Nisbet (Eds.), Contemporary social problems: An introduction to the sociology of deviant behavior and social disorganization, 651–694. Riverside: CA: University of California Press.
• Gaillard, J. C., and Texier, P. 2010. Religions, natural hazards, and disasters: An introduction. Religion, 40, 81-84.
• Greene, R. R. 2003. Resilience theory: Theoretical and professional conceptualizations. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 8(4), 75-91. 
• Hampshire, K. R., Panter-Brick, C.P., Kilpatrick, K.  and Casiday, R. E. 2009. Saving lives, preserving livelihoods: Understanding risk, decision-making and child health in a food crisis. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 758-765.
• Harrington, B. 2003. The Social Psychology of Access in Ethnographic Research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32, 592-625.
• Harrison, A. A. and Connors M. M. 1984. Groups in exotic environments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 49-87.
• Hewitt, K. 1983. Interpretations of Calamity. New York: Allen and Unwin.
• Hoffman, S. M. 2010. Disaster and the Field of Anthropology. Anthropology News, 3-4.
• Jeffery, S. E. 1982. The creation of vulnerability to natural disaster: Case studies from the Dominican Republic. Disasters, 6, 38-43.
• Jigyasu, R. 2005. Disaster: A “Reality” Or “Construct”? Perspective From The “East”. In Ronald W. Perry and E. L. Quarantelli (Eds.), What Is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions, 49-59. USA: Xlibris Press.
• Johnson, J. C. and Finney, B. R. 1986. Structural approaches to the study of groups in space: A look at two analogs. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1(3), 325-347.
• Johnston, B. and Schulte, J. 1992. Natural Power and Power Plays in Watsonville, California and the US Virgin Islands. Paper Presented to the Society for Applied Anthropology, March, 26, Memphis, TN.
• Laditka, S.B., Laditka, J.N., Cornman, C.B., Davis, C.B. and Chandlee, M.J. 2008. Disaster Preparedness for Vulnerable Persons Receiving In-Home, Long-Term Care in South Carolina. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 23(2), 135-142.
• Kumpulainen, S. 2006. Vulnerability Concepts in Hazard and Risk Assessment. In P.S. Thome (Ed.), Natural and Technological Hazards and Risks Affecting the Spatial Development of European Regions. Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper, 42, 65–74.
• Liverman, D. 1989. Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change. Workshop on Understanding Global Environmental change. Clark University.
• Mercer, J., Howes, D., Kelman, I., and Lioyd, K. 2007. The Potential for combining indigenous and western knowledge in reducing vulnerability to environmental hazards in small island developing states. Environmental Hazards, 7, 245-256.
• Minnis, P. 1985. Social Adaptation to Food Stress: A Prehistoric Southwestern Example. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Moser, C. 1989. Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Gender Needs. World Development, 17, p. 11.

 

• Nath, S. K., Roy, D., Thingbaijam, K. K. S. 2008. Disaster mitigation and management for West Bengal, India- An appraisal. Current Science, Vol. 94, No. 7, p. 858.

 

• Murchison, J. M. 2010. Ethnography Essentials: Designing, Conducting and Presenting Your Research, Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco.

 

• Mustafa, D. 2005. The terrible geographicalness of terrorism: Reflections of a hazards geographer. Antipode, 37(1), 72–92.
• Misomali, R., and McEntire, D. 2008. Rising Disasters and Their Reversal: An Identification of Vulnerability and Ways to Reduce It. In J. Pinkwoski (Ed.), Disaster Management Handbook, 19-36. USA: CRC Press.
• Morrow, B.H. 1999. Identifying and Mapping Community Vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1), 1-18.
• Moser, C. 1998. The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies. World Development, 26(1), 1-19.
• Nasreen, M. 2004. Disaster Research: Exploring Sociological Approach to Disaster in Bangladesh. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, Vol.1 (2), 1-8.
• O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K. N., and Wisner, B. 1976. Taking the Naturalness out of Natural Disaster. Nature, 260, 566.
• Oliver-Smith, A. 1991. Successes and failures in post-disaster resettlement. Disasters, 15(1), 12-23.
• Oliver-Smith, A. 1992. Disasters and Development. Environ. Urban Issues, 20, 1-3.
• Oliver-Smith, A. 1996. Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 303–328.
• Oliver-Smith, A. 1999. What is a Disaster?: Anthropological Perspectives on a Persistent Question. In A. Oliver-Smith and S. Hoffman (Eds.), The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspective, 18-34. Great Britain: Routledge.
• Oliver-Smith, A. and Hoffman, S. 2002. Introduction: Why Anthropologists Should Study Disasters. In S. Hoffman and A. Oliver-Smith (Eds.), Catastrophe & Culture: The Anthropology of Disaster, 3-22. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
• Ortner, S. B. 1984. Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26(1), 126-166.
• Parry, R. L. 2014. Ghosts of the Tsunami. London Review of Books, pp. 13-17.
• Perry, R.W. 2007. What Is a Disaster?. In H. Rodriguez, E. L. Quarantelli and R. R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of Disaster Research, 1-15. Springer.
• Pierce, C. M. 1985. Social science research in high latitudes. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 41, 581.
• Prowse, M. 2003. Towards a clearer understanding of ‘vulnerability’ in relation to chronic Poverty. CPRC Working Paper, No. 24, pp. 1-41.
• Quarantelli, E.L. 2005. A Social Science Research Agenda for the Disasters of the 21^st Century: Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Issues and Their Professional Implementation. In R. W. Perry and E. L. Quarantelli (Eds.), What Is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions, 325-396. USA: Xlibris Press.
• Reddy, S. 2011. Understanding Disaster from Anthropological Perspectives. Indian Emergency Journal, 6(1), 83-96.
• Sanyal, S., & Routray, J. K. 2016. Social Capital for Disaster Preparedness and Response: A Comparative study involving a mainland and an island scenario from the remote areas of Indian Sundarbans. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 19. pp. 101-111.
• Shultz, J.M., Espinel, Z., Galea, S. and Reissman, D.B. 2007. Disaster ecology: implications for disaster psychiatry. In U. J, Fullerton, C.S., Weisaeth, L. and Raphael, B. (Eds.). Textbook of Disaster Psychiatry, 85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Solis, G. Y., Hightower, H. C. and Kawaguchi, j. 1997. Guidelines on Cultural Diversity and Disaster Management. Report Prepared by The Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre The University of British Columbia, for Emergency Preparedness Canada, Produced within the Canadian Framework for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.
• Stallings, R. A. 1998. Disaster and the theory of social order. In E. L. Quarantelli (Ed.), What is a disaster: Perspectives on the question, 127–145. New York: Routledge.
• Tierney, K. J. 2000. Controversy and Consensus in Disaster Mental Health Research. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 15(4), 181-187.

 

• Tierney, K.J., Lindell, M.K. and Perry, R.W. (Eds.), 2001. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. Washington, D.C: Joseph Henry Press.
• Tol, W.A., Reis, R., Susanty, D. and De Jong, J.T.V.M. 2010. Communal Violence and Child Psychosocial Well-being: Qualitative Findings from Poso, Indonesia. Transcultural Psychiatry, 47(1), 112-135.
• Torry, W. I. 1979. Anthropological Studies in Hazardous Environments: Past Trends and New Horizons. Current Anthropology, 20(3), 517-540.
• Vayda, A. and McKay, B. 1975. New Directions in Ecology and Ecological Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 4, 293-306.
• Wallace, A. F. C. 1956. Human behavior in extreme situations. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
• White, P., Pelling, M., Sen, K., Seddon, D., Russell, S., and Few, R. 2004. Disaster Risk Reduction: A Development Concern. London: Department for International Development.
• Whittle, R., Marion, W., Medd, W. and Mort, M. 2012. Flood of emotions: emotional work and long-term disaster recovery. Emotion, Space and Society, 5, 60-69.
• Winchester, P. J. 1981. From Disaster to Development, Notes from India. Disasters, 5(2), 154-163.
• Wisner, B., and Luce, H.R. 1993. Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power and Daily Life. GeoJournal, 30(2), 127-140.

NOTE

This brief content has been published at international journal of Physical and Social Sciences; article entitled as Disaster and Anthropology: An overview on the Shifts of Theorizing Disaster in Interdisciplinary spectrum, 2014, vol.4, issue: 4, pp. 385-395. anyone can view the article at-https://www.academia.edu/8876480/Disaster_and_Anthropology_An_Overview_on_the_Shifts_of_Theorizing_Disaster_in_Interdisciplinary_Spectrum