Now that I have introduced a new perspective on cross-boundary coordination, and argued for its relevance, a new research area appears: how does research into coordination based on a fragmentation perspective look like? I will discuss 3 directions for further research to explore this issue: process analysis, negotiation, and involving citizens in new forms of governance.
6.6.1 Processual studies
One of the central premises in my dissertation is that coordination needs to be regarded as a process.By using a process ontology (Tsoukas and Chia 2002), I departed from the idea that all coordinative action consists of an ongoing flow of interactions. Therefore, one of the most important directions for further research is to increase our toolset to map and explore the nature of these coordination processes (Langley 1999). In this dissertation I have used a mixed methods approach to uncover submerged patterns in conversations streams with the help of Markov analysis and phase charts. In addition, I have uncovered the importance of time in the constitution of communication patterns in an evolving emergency response network. The direction for further research is based on these analytical grounds. To uncover patterns in the coordination processes it is crucial to look for new process methods to acquire a deeper understand of how and why coordination unfolds over time and how boundaries are at play in this process.
An interesting notion is to see how coordination unfolds at different locations simultaneously and how coordination processes influence each other. As I collected most of my data on my own, I only collected observational data about processes in depth at one location in a field command setting. It would be intriguing to collect data on different locations simultaneously to see how processes unfold across different locations and how they influence patterns of distributed action. As one of the main characteristics of emergency response coordination is that actions are distributed and different understandings emerge, a crucial way forward is to unravel this flux. In this flux coordination hotspots arise and disappear again at different locations, based on changing issue specific coalitions. Discovering why and how coordination hotspots emerge at different locations could be an exciting way forward to see how emergent coordination comes into being. In these coordination hotspots the underlying patterns of emergent coordination might be detected by employing different sorts of process methods (Langley 1999).
6.6.2 Pushing forward on the political dimension: negotiation in the trading zone.
On several occasions in the empirical studies power dynamics were at play. In my attempt to unravel the dynamics of coordination in-action during emergency response operations I have emphasized negotiations in the trading zone that are used to give meaning to information and ongoing coordination processes. Instead of the execution of coercive power along hierarchical lines, in the trading zone we witness a more subtle power play that manifests as a continuous struggle for meaning. The trading zone is a space where actors influence the coordination processes by opting for a specific framing of the situation, based on their cognitive and social resources at that time (Vaughan 1999). As the power dimension represents an ongoing and mutually determined interplay between various actors, certain framings are continuously redefined during the negotiations for coordination. In this framing process actors include or exclude others in the coordination process, and use the discussions to legitimate and/or de-legitimize their actions.
In other words, multiple dimensions of power are visible in the coordination process, for example coercion and agenda setting. Yet, according to Lukes (2005) power is at its most effective when least observable, therefore he introduces the third dimension of power: "the power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances
by shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences" (Lukes 2005, p. 11). During
the negotiations in the trading zone we can witness power dynamics at all these three levels: e.g. first, letting the field commander decide what actions to take; second, giving room to specific actors to frame the incident and determine priorities; and third, letting a certain framing about safety dominate the incident response operation so that it is literally stopped by other emergency management organizations without any hesitation. In addition, the perception of boundaries are a key aspect of negotiation during cross- boundary coordination processes. As the relevance of certain types of boundaries are negotiated in the trading zone, they may or may not be depicted on a Common Operational Picture. Therefore, deciding why and when to bridge or reinforce boundaries during cross-boundary coordination might be an additional key aspect in unraveling the power dynamics of cross-boundary coordination.
In future studies such a layered power analysis can help in unraveling the political dimension of emergency response coordination, because power is exercised at multiple levels and manifests in more and less observable modes. The concept of the trading zone can figure as a vocal point that embodies the space of legitimation for decision making processes, and a space of framing, where novel configurations of ideas and norms about
6
the response operation arise. Therefore, the exchange of information in the trading zone is not only about dialogic coordination (Faraj and Xiao 2006), but is also a discursive
practice (Foucault 1980) that is based on a historically and culturally specific set of rules
for organizing and producing different forms of knowledge. As we learned in previous chapters, negotiation is central to cross-boundary coordination in action. The next step is to analyze in more detail which (unobtrusive) power dynamics are at play that influence the outcome of the negotiation processes.
6.6.3 Smart Governance: moving beyond the boundaries of emergency management organizations 6
Like the analysis of the Schiphol tunnel fire in chapter 5 already showed, as emergencies become larger multiple sets of stakeholders become involved in the response operation. During disasters, emergent and unforeseen collaborations appear, especially when demands are not met by existing response organizations, or when responses are insufficient or inappropriate (Drabek and McEntire 2003). This idea is also embedded in the Continuity, Coordination and Cooperation paradigm, which entails that emergency management organizations have to make use of existing social structures and collaborate with other stakeholders, local communities, and citizens during the response operation. It is based on the experience that very often your neighbor is the first emergency responder on scene.
Emergent networks fill an important void that cannot be filled by command and control approaches to disaster response (Tierney et al. 2001). Namely, they comprise adaptive, networked partnerships that did not exist before the disaster struck, and can continuously adapt to an environment in flux. At the same time, emergent networks are also characterized by fleeting membership, dispersed leadership, unclear boundaries, and unstable task definitions (Majchrzak et al. 2007). One characteristic of emergent community responses which makes it hard to manage is that these initiatives emerge in a situation where different types of networks co-occur. Emergent community networks have varying functions (e.g. logistics, shelter, aid), and have different origins (e.g.
6 Parts of this section are published in:
Boersma K., J. Ferguson, P. Groenewegen, J. Wolbers. 2014. Beyond the Myth of Control: toward network switching in disaster management. In: S.R. Hiltz, M.S. Pfaff, L. Plotnick, and A.C. Robinson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management ISCRAM 2014. University Park, Pennsylvania, USA, May 2014: 125-129
neighborhood, religious, local (sports)clubs and partly (re)organize in response to disaster, or are reconfigured by key emergent actors to interconnect with one another. Their initiatives are therefore difficult to recognize, govern, and support from within existing response organizations.
As a result, the functioning of distributed, emergent coordination is not yet fully understood (Topper and Carley 1999). Including local communities in the response network and facilitating their efforts is nonetheless a critical aspect of disaster governance. Local involvement potentially enables professional disaster managers to harness the capacities of existing societal structures, leaving local communities to deal with tasks that managers are overburdened with, and allowing managers to focus on other relevant activities. To deal with disaster effects responses must be coordinated by heterogeneous stakeholders, in cooperation with citizens (Dynes 1994, Helsloot and Ruitenberg 2004).Communities thus become part of the disaster manager's resources, since they know how to solve local problems much better than outsiders.
Still, in general, emergency response agencies tend to resort to means of control for protecting the established social structures and to restore public order (Quarantelli and Dynes 1977, Tierney et al. 2006). The paradoxical result is that the resilience of communities during disasters tends to be hampered, rather than supported by government responses, due to their quest for control (Solnit 2010). To impose an authoritarian structure on a disaster is limiting, because it fails to integrate the overall community response. While the command and control remains a powerful instrument for accomplishing tasks characterized by repetition and uniformity, it insufficiently accounts for the response capacity of communities.
Overall, the consequences of citizen participation are still highly unknown (Roberts 2011). How to govern the disaster management operation together with all kinds of social stakeholders, including emergent citizen communities, is an open research issue, that I will attempt tackle as a Postdoctoral Researcher in the coming four years in the NWO awarded smart governance research program: "Enhancing smart disaster governance: