27 Methodology

This study explores the alignment of international strategy in disaster risk reduction with internationally recognized standards for emergency management programs by critically examining terminology, core concepts, and priority areas across key documents. As described in the literature review, there is a general lack of consistency and clarity in the use of terminology in research and practice related to disaster risk reduction and emergency (and disaster) management research, along with limited research on the topic. Due to the dearth of literature on the topic, this study explores alignment of one aspect (emergency management programs) of international strategy in disaster risk reduction, as categorized by the United Nations (Jacia, 2014). A qualitative methodology with an exploratory, inductive thematic analysis was used to examine the topic and answer the question: How do internationally recognized standards for emergency management programs align with international strategy in disaster risk reduction?

A review of the literature and key documents was performed to explore pertinent international-level strategies and standards involving disaster risk reduction and emergency management programs. Upon review, data collection involving international strategy was narrowed to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030 (Sendai Framework) and the supporting document, United Nations General Assembly Report 71/644: “Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction” (UN/GA 71/644), adopted in 2016. The two primary sources for interdisciplinary emergency management program standards that have received international recognition, included in this study are the 1) Emergency Management Standard (2019) by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP Standard) and 2) International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee 292: Security and Resilience standards (ISO/TC 292) (see Table 9). While all of the standards by ISO/TC 292 were analyzed, the ISO 22300: 2021 Security and Resilience – Vocabulary (ISO 22300 Vocabulary) was predominantly used to verify specific definitions for key terms and concepts. Data was analyzed using a thematic approach to identify and compare common themes and patterns across the strategy and standards. The thematic analysis followed an iterative process of data familiarization, coding, theme development, and refinement, aiming to identify key themes and patterns. The final themes represented areas of alignment and/or divergence identified across the data and included 1) terminology, 2) core concepts, and 3) priority areas. The findings present the comparison and extent of alignment.

The results of this study should be interpreted alongside potential limitations. Methodological limitations may limit the generalizability of the findings, and the inherent subjective interpretation may have introduced bias. The narrow scope of the study (emergency management programs) was necessary for the exploratory analysis on the topic but inherently introduce potential limitations when interpreting the findings. Data collection and analysis was focused on specific standards that have received international recognition, possibly excluding relevant documents or other nation-specific standards. Furthermore, the findings did not include standards involving disaster risk reduction (e.g., sustainability, climate change, risk management). While the latest versions of documents were studied, the dynamic nature of the standards suggest that the standards will continue to evolve. To enhance rigor, the researcher employed strategies, such as detailed and contextual descriptions of the data to allow for more transferability of the findings and engaged in reflexive practices to minimize potential biases and assumptions throughout the analysis process.