A Dilemma of Language: "Natural Disasters" in Academic Literature
A Dilemma of Language: "Natural Disasters" in Academic Literature
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s13753-019-00232-2
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
von Meding, Jason
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chmutina, Ksenia;von Meding, Jason
几十年来，学术界的一些部门一直强调灾难不是自然发生的。然而，政界人士、媒体、各种国际组织--更令人惊讶的是，许多从事灾害研究的老牌研究人员--仍在广泛使用“自然灾害”这个词。我们系统地分析了灾害学研究人员在6种代表灾害学研究的重点学术期刊的589篇文章中使用“自然灾害”一词的情况，发现作者主要从三个方面使用“自然灾害”一词：(1)描绘自然和人为的危害；(2)利用这一表达来利用知名度；(3)对“自然灾害”这一表述进行批判。我们还确定了说明“自然灾害”使用背景的漏洞主题。在明确研究人类脆弱性的同时，继续使用这一表达的含义是广泛的，我们探索这对我们和我们的同龄人意味着什么。这项研究的目的尤其是为了在灾害学研究界和相关领域引发关于“自然灾害”一词是否真的适合未来发展的辩论。
For decades sections of the academic community have been emphasizing that disasters are not natural. Nevertheless, politicians, the media, various international organizations-and, more surprisingly, many established researchers working in disaster studies-are still widely using the expression "natural disaster." We systematically analyzed the usage of the expression "natural disaster" by disaster studies researchers in 589 articles in six key academic journals representative of disaster studies research, and found that authors are using the expression in three principal ways: (1) delineating natural and human-induced hazards; (2) using the expression to leverage popularity; and (3) critiquing the expression "natural disaster." We also identified vulnerability themes that illustrate the context of "natural disaster" usage. The implications of continuing to use this expression, while explicitly researching human vulnerability, are wide-ranging, and we explore what this means for us and our peers. This study particularly aims to stimulate debate within the disaster studies research community and related fields as to whether the term "natural disaster" is really fit for purpose moving forward.