Re-imagining Technologies of Recovery
This chapter is about the way that recovery protocols are transformed and re-imagined in recovery practice when local actors became involved. I focus specifically on an account of one meeting to show the way in which different happens. Looking at just one meeting is in itself a direct challenge to the way that emergency planning reports and protocols usually aim to look at the bigger, macro picture; stripping away what is considered irrelevant. But it is these elements of practice which make visible so much more about the way that recovery happens in a situation. As I detailed in Part One, I am focussing specifically on a set of protocols designed for emergency planners working in the ‘recovery phase’ after a flood. The types of protocols that I am exploring here are essentially what Marc Berg describes as ‘decision-support tools’ designed to illuminate a pathway (1997: 4). He examines the roles played by protocols and checklists in a medical setting and the way in which the people in these settings interact with them as I will go on to discuss. I also use his work here to examine the way in which the plans and protocols in a local setting are used to orient what happens next.
- Academy for Community Leadership (ACL). (2008). Toll Bar on Sea. Published by Toll Bar Forum in Association with Pontefract Press [A collection of the testimonies of Toll Bar residents collected in 2007 immediately after the floods].Google Scholar
- Ashmore, M., Mulkay, M., & Pinch, T. (1989). Health and Efficiency: A Sociology of Health Economics. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- BBC. (2007). DIY SOS: Floods Special, 27 December.Google Scholar
- Bennett, S. (2011) Human Factors for Maintenance Engineers and Others: A Prerequisite for Success. Encyclopaedia of Aerospace Engineering. Wiley.Google Scholar
- Berg, M. (1997). Rationalizing Medical Work. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
- Bijker, W., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2008). The Government’s Response to Sir Michael Pitt’s Review. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/floods07/Govtresptopitt.pdf as at August 18, 2009.
- Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC). (2008). Neighbourhood Management Team Data—Notes. (Unpublished).Google Scholar
- Easthope, L. (2008). Public Inquiries After Disaster: A Thematic Review of the Research. Project report commissioned by the Cabinet Office Emergency Planning College.Google Scholar
- Fordham, M. (1998). Making Women Visible in Disasters: Problematising the Private Domain. Disasters, 22(2), 126–143.Google Scholar
- Law, J., & Mol, A. (2002). Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. North Carolina: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
- Lord Justice Clarke. (2001). Public Inquiry into the Identification of Victims following Major Transport Accidents. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
- Mclean, I., & Johnes, M. (2000). Aberfan: Government and Disasters. Cardiff: Welsh Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Pitt, M. (2008). Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods: An Independent Review by Sir Michael Pitt. http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview//media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/flooding_review/pitt_review_full%20pdf.pdf as at July 4, 2009.