Analyze

What I find really noteworthy in this text is how Julia Watts Belser takes the poem by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and includes it into a scientific text. In this way, she not only allows an affected person to have her say, the poem also leaves the reader with a very striking image of the connection between the river and the body, in multiple ways, as well as the connection between enviromental harm and disability.

The text was published in 2020 (Vol. 40, No. 4) by The Ohio State University Libraries in their Journal Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ). It is, as you can read on their Homepage "a multidisciplinary and international journal of interest to social scientists, scholars in the humanities and arts, disability rights advocates, and others concerned with the issues of people with disabilities. It represents the full range of methods, epistemologies, perspectives, and content that the field of disability studies embraces. DSQ is committed to developing theoretical and practical knowledge about disability and to promoting the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society."

The author connects disability theories and activism with environmental justice, this approach allows her to show how disability is related to and through environmental harm, she shows how diagnoses are used politically in these cases, and looks critically at how these processes determine how, when and in what favor human and environmental harm is taken into account. The writing is shaped by the consequences of the Anthropocene like environmental harm linked to health isusses, especially affected are communities of color and poor communities in the United States, here pre-existing patters of structural inequality, already known from climate change come into play,  this communities are the most affected and the least responsible.

The text left me with a question that I actually often find frustrating in the process of research. On page 6, the authors take up the criticism of a Fukushima resident who says: “[W]hat you call research does not give benefits to local people” (Miyamoto and Ankei, 2008, cited in Ankei, 2013, p.24). The authors here suggest adopting or borrowing terms from the field that are used by citizens to create a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003). From the authors' point of view, this can be achieved above all by paying closer and careful attention to the language of citizen organizations and the contexts these groups work in. After further elaboration, the authors call for citizen science terms and concepts developed by, for and with citizens to better reflect the values, priorities, and stakes of its main agents and of all concerned parties. But I am not sure that this approach alone would be sufficient to adequately address such expressed criticism. Perhaps one should ask about the expectations of people one is researching with/about in order to enter into a conversation and to be able to understand this criticism. Perhaps the authors will address this point again in further publications. I think to ask oneself how to deal with this criticism methodically and ethically could also be very fruitful for empirical research in general.

The skfkjsfjlaklfjlksf

The Disaster Management Act of 2005 constitutes the responsibilites of the NIDM to be human resource development, capacity building, training, research, documentation and policy advocacy in the field of disaster management. The organization aims to promote disaster management as a high priority in the national goverment. They also aspire to create "a culture of prevention" pertaining to disasters that involves all stakeholders. 

The Minister of Home Affairs acts as the President, and the Vice Chairman of the NDMA (National Disaster Management Authority) acts as Vice President. The body of the organiation is comprised of 42 members including secretaries of nodal Ministries and Departments of Government of India and State Governments, the heads of national scientific, research and technical organizations, and eminent scientists and practioners. The governing body of the organization, which runs its day to day operations, is comprised of 16 members, and is chaired by the Vice Chairman of the NDMA, with the Secretary of Home Affairs acting as the Vice President. 

Image

The Disaster Management Act of 2005 constitutes the responsibilites of the NIDM to be human resource development, capacity building, training, research, documentation and policy advocacy in the field of disaster management. The organization aims to promote disaster management as a high priority in the national goverment. They also aspire to create "a culture of prevention" pertaining to disasters that involves all stakeholders.