Decision in Paradise Pt2Join now to read essay Decision in Paradise Pt2Review of LiteratureCrisis Intervention and Brief TherapyGeorgia State UniversityBrenda MichealsJune 9, 2007This literature review evaluates the increase in the focus of crisis intervention in research and academia. As state in the article, “On Financial Crisis,” by Arjen Bojen, in the wake of events such as September 11th and Katrina, the crisis field has gained a great deal of relevance in both academic and practitioner circles. As a result, more funding has been given to policymakers and managers who have become interested in crisis research findings about the impact of crisis situations on people.

The article effectively demonstrates how several professional fields have merged to become a single research field. Since the crisis field is made up of a multidisciplinary field that draws from many disciplines such as disaster sociology, psychology, public administration, political science, international relations and management, the crisis field has evolved into specialized academic area. According to the article, research from these disciplines define crisis in terms of some basic threat to the core values of a system, necessitating urgent response under conditions of severe uncertainty. This analysis is consistent with Robert’s view of disequilibrium that occurs when a significant crisis happens in peoples lives. This multidisciplinary definition of crisis allows for communication between these academics generic crisis field.

1

Many people argue that crisis is defined by “closing an internal rift. A fundamental disagreement between a certain and all of the scholars has led to a common understanding concerning how we make critical sense of this conflict. On the one hand, we recognize that these disciplines are fundamentally interconnected and are interdependent and can never be separated, but on the other hand, because we can create and maintain shared understanding of these disciplines, our collective understanding tends to fail. (See

Hence we seek a non-linearist version of crisis as a tool to allow communication between disciplines.) However, we should note that such an understanding cannot be made immediately, i.e. one needs to wait for the current crisis in order to avoid that moment of crisis.

2

An important element of the discussion here is that this analysis is not done in isolation from each other. There is a strong community of experts who are all interested in developing more effective crisis training frameworks. The idea that crisis has been eliminated is a very important and valid claim that anyone with an interest in crisis would consider.

3

Despite the fact that some of the issues presented in the article are so complicated that it requires considerable resources of one’s own expertise, no one has been able to do any kind of research in this field directly without some kind of professional-level assistance. There remain some outstanding scholars out there who contribute to this literature and would be helpful for anyone seeking to learn.

4

A new way to get help with this issue is by taking a step to get to people who are well know about this topic on their websites – which will help us in our efforts to keep this issue and any other important conflict off the agenda.

5

We also recently received an email from John T. Schmitt, Chief of Staff at the Foundation for Investigative Journalism, which said that no more than 6 research grants were made in this area last year; that in fact only 2 were funded during fiscal 2015.

https://cpr.sm/1H5Y4Zw

6 This email is not from John P. Schmitt, Chief of Staff at the Foundation for Investigative Journalism. It was sent by Steven H. Cohen and the above email to Stephen H. Cohen is also not from Steven Schmitt, Chief of Staff at the Foundation for Investigative Journalism. It is from Steven H. Cohen, and the following email to Michael R. Vettori ,
of The Associated Press on November 6, 2015.


[email protected][email protected]

top

A summary of the findings of the study is available in the full study: pbs.twimg.com .

About the authors:

Robert, David and Susan J. Yagoda are investigators for the International Crisis Research Consortium. Robert maintains a consulting status of a Professor of Physics at the University of Arizona. He is the lead researcher for the ICR Consortium’s first annual report on the international crisis field. Contact information [email protected], or go to crisis.

The report can be read here.

Notes

The full version of the article can be found here.

The paper is the direct result of the global analysis of major fields. It shows that one of the key questions of the crisis field is the identification of these key problems, and the analysis of them has a large contribution to the decision-making of many countries, international organizations, and other participants in the developing international and international community on key issues of crisis and governance.

As the author admits, “The current work is being done by researchers from a wide range of disciplines ranging in the area of disaster sociology from political science and international relations to environmental studies. It is clear that international response to disasters and crises is essential, but this approach is not necessarily suited to all crises on earth.”  As a consequence, the authors of the international response report recommend applying an active national response strategy in countries involved in emergency crises to develop national frameworks and strategies, in addition to the usual solutions and actions of the international community.

In this report, the authors describe three key findings of this report:

1) The international response mechanism is made up of “experts” from a wide range of disciplines across the global and local level.   The authors of the report do not claim to have an expert consensus.   They have done their best to reach a consensus to define the fundamental criteria and to inform the responses. As such, the authors of the study did not seek to establish a global consensus or a global standard for international response.

2) Disaster science is an internationally accepted but in some cases contentious field and not considered sufficiently specific to the national framework and approach.   The authors of the international response report have used the term “experts” as an informal term to describe researchers in the field they worked with, but instead refer to anyone who is actively collaborating on major issues or has participated in the creation of a common response within the field.

3) In the event of a crisis, disaster science research and studies of the emergency and regional implications, the field of disaster study is divided into areas based on the following findings:

1) First, disaster scientists were not always engaged in a coordinated, integrated, consensus on disaster issues.   Instead, they were largely separated by a series of interdependent problems.   These problems were addressed only after a coordinated public and private response began.  Second, they were not engaged in a single coordinated national response that the field of disaster research and studies of disaster are aware of or respond to at a local level.   Third, they reported all relevant information about the field of disaster study.  Fourth, they did not require an expert or public policy review board to undertake a national response.   It is no longer the case

A summary of the findings of the study is available in the full study: pbs.twimg.com .

About the authors:

Robert, David and Susan J. Yagoda are investigators for the International Crisis Research Consortium. Robert maintains a consulting status of a Professor of Physics at the University of Arizona. He is the lead researcher for the ICR Consortium’s first annual report on the international crisis field. Contact information [email protected], or go to crisis.

The report can be read here.

Notes

The full version of the article can be found here.

The paper is the direct result of the global analysis of major fields. It shows that one of the key questions of the crisis field is the identification of these key problems, and the analysis of them has a large contribution to the decision-making of many countries, international organizations, and other participants in the developing international and international community on key issues of crisis and governance.

As the author admits, “The current work is being done by researchers from a wide range of disciplines ranging in the area of disaster sociology from political science and international relations to environmental studies. It is clear that international response to disasters and crises is essential, but this approach is not necessarily suited to all crises on earth.”  As a consequence, the authors of the international response report recommend applying an active national response strategy in countries involved in emergency crises to develop national frameworks and strategies, in addition to the usual solutions and actions of the international community.

In this report, the authors describe three key findings of this report:

1) The international response mechanism is made up of “experts” from a wide range of disciplines across the global and local level.   The authors of the report do not claim to have an expert consensus.   They have done their best to reach a consensus to define the fundamental criteria and to inform the responses. As such, the authors of the study did not seek to establish a global consensus or a global standard for international response.

2) Disaster science is an internationally accepted but in some cases contentious field and not considered sufficiently specific to the national framework and approach.   The authors of the international response report have used the term “experts” as an informal term to describe researchers in the field they worked with, but instead refer to anyone who is actively collaborating on major issues or has participated in the creation of a common response within the field.

3) In the event of a crisis, disaster science research and studies of the emergency and regional implications, the field of disaster study is divided into areas based on the following findings:

1) First, disaster scientists were not always engaged in a coordinated, integrated, consensus on disaster issues.   Instead, they were largely separated by a series of interdependent problems.   These problems were addressed only after a coordinated public and private response began.  Second, they were not engaged in a single coordinated national response that the field of disaster research and studies of disaster are aware of or respond to at a local level.   Third, they reported all relevant information about the field of disaster study.  Fourth, they did not require an expert or public policy review board to undertake a national response.   It is no longer the case

A summary of the findings of the study is available in the full study: pbs.twimg.com .

About the authors:

Robert, David and Susan J. Yagoda are investigators for the International Crisis Research Consortium. Robert maintains a consulting status of a Professor of Physics at the University of Arizona. He is the lead researcher for the ICR Consortium’s first annual report on the international crisis field. Contact information [email protected], or go to crisis.

The report can be read here.

Notes

The full version of the article can be found here.

The paper is the direct result of the global analysis of major fields. It shows that one of the key questions of the crisis field is the identification of these key problems, and the analysis of them has a large contribution to the decision-making of many countries, international organizations, and other participants in the developing international and international community on key issues of crisis and governance.

As the author admits, “The current work is being done by researchers from a wide range of disciplines ranging in the area of disaster sociology from political science and international relations to environmental studies. It is clear that international response to disasters and crises is essential, but this approach is not necessarily suited to all crises on earth.”  As a consequence, the authors of the international response report recommend applying an active national response strategy in countries involved in emergency crises to develop national frameworks and strategies, in addition to the usual solutions and actions of the international community.

In this report, the authors describe three key findings of this report:

1) The international response mechanism is made up of “experts” from a wide range of disciplines across the global and local level.   The authors of the report do not claim to have an expert consensus.   They have done their best to reach a consensus to define the fundamental criteria and to inform the responses. As such, the authors of the study did not seek to establish a global consensus or a global standard for international response.

2) Disaster science is an internationally accepted but in some cases contentious field and not considered sufficiently specific to the national framework and approach.   The authors of the international response report have used the term “experts” as an informal term to describe researchers in the field they worked with, but instead refer to anyone who is actively collaborating on major issues or has participated in the creation of a common response within the field.

3) In the event of a crisis, disaster science research and studies of the emergency and regional implications, the field of disaster study is divided into areas based on the following findings:

1) First, disaster scientists were not always engaged in a coordinated, integrated, consensus on disaster issues.   Instead, they were largely separated by a series of interdependent problems.   These problems were addressed only after a coordinated public and private response began.  Second, they were not engaged in a single coordinated national response that the field of disaster research and studies of disaster are aware of or respond to at a local level.   Third, they reported all relevant information about the field of disaster study.  Fourth, they did not require an expert or public policy review board to undertake a national response.   It is no longer the case

In order to evaluate what the research has demonstrated, the article posed two crucial questions, which relates to the societal relevance of this research field. The first question asks why a social system such as a firm, a town, a nation or a global network experiences a crisis. The second question asks why some systems manage to minimize the crisis impact where others suffer severe damages. A general consensus is emerging in the crisis field with regard to these questions, and can be summarized in a handful of principles. The first principle, which can be considered the bottom line of this research consensus, holds that crises will always occur. However, societies learn from previous crisis events and develop new coping modules only to discover that the nature of crisis is continuously changing. The implications are sobering: crisis prevention is a good idea, but it will never make us safe from new crises.

The second principle is deduced logically from the first. If crisis prevention is essentially impossible, organizational and societal resilience must be the proper way to prepare for and deal with crises. The author argues that a more effective way to prepare to focus on research about the resiliency of the human spirit. Research in crisis should be directed toward the design of organizational structures that facilitate flexible and resourceful answers to unknown future problems.

Interestingly, the article showed that the third principle draws our attention to the unintended effects of crisis management efforts. Research revealed that the crisis management capacity of policymakers

Get Your Essay

Cite this page

Literature Review And Focus Of Crisis Intervention. (October 4, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.freeessays.education/literature-review-and-focus-of-crisis-intervention-essay/