Re-imagining Technologies of Recovery

  • Lucy EasthopeEmail author


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.


  1. 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
  2. Ashmore, M., Mulkay, M., & Pinch, T. (1989). Health and Efficiency: A Sociology of Health Economics. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. BBC. (2007). DIY SOS: Floods Special, 27 December.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, S. (2011) Human Factors for Maintenance Engineers and Others: A Prerequisite for Success. Encyclopaedia of Aerospace Engineering. Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Berg, M. (1997). Rationalizing Medical Work. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bijker, W., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2008). The Government’s Response to Sir Michael Pitt’s Review. as at August 18, 2009.
  8. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC). (2008). Neighbourhood Management Team Data—Notes. (Unpublished).Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Fordham, M. (1998). Making Women Visible in Disasters: Problematising the Private Domain. Disasters, 22(2), 126–143.Google Scholar
  11. Law, J., & Mol, A. (2002). Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. North Carolina: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lord Justice Clarke. (2001). Public Inquiry into the Identification of Victims following Major Transport Accidents. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. Mclean, I., & Johnes, M. (2000). Aberfan: Government and Disasters. Cardiff: Welsh Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pitt, M. (2008). Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods: An Independent Review by Sir Michael Pitt. as at July 4, 2009.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Recovery adviser and researcherDoncasterUK

Personalised recommendations