Search

Where and how has this text been referenced or discussed?

annlejan7
Annotation of
In response to

The case study findings in the text have been discussed with senior staff at the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and members of the California Latino Legislative Caucus. It has also been presented at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and the Yale Center for the Study of Race, Indigeneity, and Transnational Migration during a Scoping Analysis workshop with California policymakers and advocates.

What (two or more) quotes from this text are exemplary or particularly evocative?

annlejan7
Annotation of
In response to

“Despite these disadvantages, the state of California has failed to map wildfire vulnerability based on socioeconomic status. Without an accurate identification and mapping process, the state is unable to provide local governments and community-based groups with a reliable rendering of the populations most vulnerable to the impacts of wildfire. Most importantly, by failing to identify socially vulnerable communities across California, government entities are unable to understand in advance where to target limited resources and programs (Sadd et al., 2011).” (Mendez 57)

 

“To further ensure participation and strengthen capacity, federal, state and local governments should provide appropriate funding to community-based organizations working directly with vulnerable populations.Community-based organizations have stronger cultural competency in engaging with communities of color and immigrants,

greater levels of trust, and more flexibility to explicitly assist these populations. In community-based planning processes, vulnerable communities are actively engaged in the identification, analysis and interventions, monitoring, and evaluation of disaster risks. This approach helps reduce their vulnerabilities and enhance their capacities.” (Mendez 59)

 

What does this text focus on and what methods does it build from? What scales of analysis are foregrounded?

annlejan7
Annotation of
In response to

This text highlights the importance of a mixed methods approach to disaster planning. Specifically, the importance of incorporating qualitative research methods as a way to anchor the voices of marginalized communities within disaster planning and provide context to emerging trends observed in climate related risks.  Regarding disaster planning and undocumented immigrant communities for example, Mendez (2020) stresses that practitioners must go beyond addressing the contextual vulnerability of these communities and consider how to address systemic problems perpetuated by the agricultural industry. The lack of accountability and disregard for human life within the industry, coupled with the lack political power within undocumented immigrant communities, particularly those belonging to the Mixteco/ Indigena indigenous groups, are systems of oppression which must be addressed if climate disaster risks are to be truly addressed.

What is the main argument, narrative and effect of this text? What evidence and examples support these?

annlejan7
Annotation of
In response to

Mendez (2020) stresses that the intersectionality of race, class, gender, indigeneity, and many other dimensions of identities coalesce to shape the lived experiences of people in their local environments. Traditional quantitative methods, though useful in providing snapshots of disaster vulnerability, can do little in capturing the social environmental conditions which determine responses to extreme weather and climatic events. At best, it can serve to provide an obscured understanding of disaster risks, at worst, this one-dimensional methodology approach may exacerbate existing inequalities perpetuated by systems of racism, classicism, and sexism by rendering whole communities invisible simply by virtue of sampling biases (Mendez, 2020). The case study by which Mendez frames his central argument focuses on how Indigenous immigrants were systematically ignored in emergency response and alleviation efforts following the Thomas Fire in California’s Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. 

 

further queries

ntanio
Annotation of
In response to

1. In the different instances of PECE (D-STS/TAF/etc.) are the artifacts/essays you have created in once instance available to cite/share in another? For example, how would you link an essay built for VTP into a TAF-California essay?

2. How to navigate the various levels of restriction remains unclear to me. For example, if I want to share and build an essay with a research partner but the project is not ready for prime time, how do I set restrictions to share work in progress? Is there a way for me to do a quality control tests to see how an essay looks to not-me participants.

3. I want to use PECE to build an annotated bibliography that typically addresses Traweek's 5 key aspects of a reading. Importing the citation to zotero is easy, and typically I would add notes to the zotero file, but if I want a more uniform notetaking and accessible bibliography PECE seems to be a better fit. For any given project how should I go about building a PECE essay that would be consistently allow new citations to be added along with ongoing and layered/laminated annotations?

Expectations of data management

ntanio
Annotation of
In response to

Most of my experience is not with funders but with IRB. In multiple IRB applications I have had to assert that data will not be shared and in fact will be stored on a hard drive that is not connected to the internet in a locked environment to protect the privacy of research participants. This may be because much of my research to date has involved minors in and outside classroom learning environments. However even on team projects where sharing data is assumed, we have has to assert that data will be stored offline except during short periods when using a qualitative analytic program like Dedoose.