Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpcs20
ISSN: 1468-1366(Print) 1747-5104(Online)Journal homepage:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpcs20
S
ituat
ing
preparedness
educat
ion
w
ith
in
pub
l
ic
pedagogy
Kaor
i
K
itagawa
To cite this article: Kaori Kitagawa (2017) Situating preparedness education within public pedagogy, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 25:1, 1-13, DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2016.1200660 Tolink to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1200660
© 2016 The Author(s). Published byInforma UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 04Jul 2016.
Submit your article to thisjournal
Article views: 340
View Crossmark data
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1200660
S
ituat
ing
preparedness
educat
ion
w
ith
in
pub
l
ic
pedagogy
Kaori Kitagawa
Cass School of Education and Communities,University of East London, London, UK
ABSTRACT
Both‘disaster preparedness’ and‘public pedagogy’ have been broadly defned and diversely utilised. Preparedness has been dealt within disciplines such as civil engineering, the sociology of disasters, public health and psychology, rather than education. Recently,inquiriesinto thelearning and teaching of preparedness haveincreasedin the feld of education. Some position preparedness education within the feld of public pedagogy. However, conceptual discussion as to how and why the two felds are associated has beenlimited. The primary aim of this paperis to fll this gap by drawing on public pedagogyliterature that conceptualises‘publics’ and‘pedagogies’. In doing so, the paper attempts to respond to callforProblematizing Public Pedagogy.
Introduction
This paper contributes to the conceptualisation of two growing sub-disciplinesin education: ‘prepared-ness education’ and‘public pedagogy’. Both concepts have been broadly defned and diversely utilised, and the treatment of‘preparedness education’ as part of‘public pedagogy’ has beenincreasingly seen in recentliterature(e.g. Chadderton2015a;Izumi and Shaw2014; Preston2012; Preston et al.2011). However, conceptual discussion as to how and why the two felds are associated has beenlimited; this paper aims to fll this gap. The approach taken hereis frst, to review theintra-relationships within each concept –‘preparedness’ as‘education’ and‘publicness’ of‘pedagogy’ – and then to discuss theinter -re-lationship of the two concepts, situating‘preparedness education’in the realm of‘public pedagogy’. The paper broadly uses the term‘preparedness education’ to encompass‘civil defence education’,‘emergency education’ and‘disaster education’, which are utilisedin preparednessliterature.
Preston(2012, 1) reminds us that reparedness educationis a relatively‘new enquiryin the feld of education’. According to the United Nations(UN/ISDR 2008),‘preparedness’ refers to‘capacities and knowledge developed by governments, professional response organisations, communities andind i-viduals to anticipate and respond efectively to theimpact oflikely,imminent or current hazard events or conditions’. Governments are pressured to enhance preparednessfor disaster scenarios, whether man-made or natural,in order to cope withincreasing and diversifying risks and threats. Preparedness operations areimplemented through diverse methodsincludingleafets, warning signs, school curr ic-ular, broadcasting and social media. Their purposeis to urge citizens to think about‘what they would do’ and‘how they would respond’in case of a disaster. Such operations have tended to be considered as‘information transmission’ rather than educational activities(Preston 2012, 3). Moving beyond such ‘advertising or public relations models’, Preston(2012, 3) proposes a‘pedagogical’ approach based on models oflearning and teaching because preparedness activities are educational, aiming to change
KEYWORDS
Preparedness education; public pedagogy; disaster education; preparedness; a pedagogyintheinterest of publicness; everyday-life preparedness; Japan
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited,trading asTaylor & Francis Group.
Thisis an Open Access article distributed undertheterms ofthe Creative Commons AttributionLicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproductionin any medium, providedthe original workis properly cited.
CONTACT Kaori Kitagawa [email protected]
‘individual conditions concerning emergencies’, including behaviours, emotions and perceptions. Instead of providingindividuals with‘instruction’, pedagogies of preparedness‘engageindividualsin learning about emergency situations whetherin preparation, response or recoveryfrom a disaster’ (Preston 2012, 3). The observation that preparedness has been dealt within disciplines such as risk management, civil engineering, sociology of disasters, public health and psychology, rather than edu-cation also applies to disaster-prone countrieslike New Zealand and Japan that have a rich history of preparedness(Chadderton 2015b; Kitagawa2015a).
‘Public pedagogy’is generally understood as‘variousforms, processes, and sites of education and learning beyond or outsideformal schooling’(Burdick, Sandlin, and O’Malley2014, 2). As an outcome of an extensive mapping exercise, Sandlin, O’Malley, and Burdick(2011) suggested a typology of pub -lic pedagogyliterature asfollows:(1) citizenship within and beyond schools;(2) popular culture and everydaylife;(3)informalinstitutions and public spaces;(4) dominant cultural discourses; and(5) public intellectualism and social activism. The exercise revealed that the term had been‘given a variety of defnitions and meanings by those who employit’(Burdick, Sandlin, and O’Malley 2014, 2), and what ‘public’ means‘is almost unexploredin theliterature’(Sandlin, O’Malley, and Burdick2011, 365). Burdick, Sandlin, and O’Malley(2014)in their subsequent bookProblematizing Public Pedagogy reinforce their concern towards this‘fragile’ nature of public pedagogyliteraturein which‘authors often citing the term without adequately explicatingits meaning, context, orlocation with difering and contested articulation of the construct’. Their callfor‘problematising public pedagogy’ aims to diminish ‘con-ceptual confusion’ and to endorse‘distinct theorizations’(Burdick, Sandlin, and O’Malley 2014, 3). To achieve this, three questions are posed:(1) how are the terms‘public’ and‘pedagogy’ conceptualised? (2) whatis‘pedagogical’ about‘public pedagogy’? and(3) why‘pedagogical’, not‘curricular’(Burdick, Sandlin, and O’Malley 2014, 5)? This paper aims to respond mainly to the frst questionin relation to preparedness education scholarship.
Methodologically, this paper uses a wide range of preparedness educationliterature and public pedagogyliterature. Few educationalists have discussed disaster preparedness(Preston 2012).1 This
paper consequently draws on the small group of authors who have written about thelearning and teaching of preparedness. Theleading scholaris Preston, whose sole-authored theoretical contributions (2008,2010,2012,2015), as well as co-authored pieces(2011,2014) havefocused on empirical fndings. The paper alsointerrogates other developments that connect disaster education to public pedagogy (Chadderton 2015a, 2015b; Kitagawa,forthcoming).It should be noted that thereis a rich body of literature available on preparedness‘curricula’(e.g. Adamson2014; Johnson et al.2014), whichfocuses on‘what should belearned and taught’.Itis signifcant to diferentiate the two areasfor the purpose of the discussion on‘public pedagogy’.In terms of public pedagogyliterature, based on the typo l-ogy ofered by Sandlin, O’Malley, and Burdick(2011), the paper reviews wide-ranging resourcesfrom their subsequent book of 2014, Problematizing Public Pedagogy, and theHandbook of Public Pedagogy (Sandlin, Schultz, and Burdick2010). This paper particularlyfocuses on two conceptual worksfrom Problematizing Public Pedagogy to explore the conceptualisation of‘public’ and‘pedagogy’: Savage’s (2014)framework ofpolitical, popular andconcrete publics, and Biesta’s(2014)framework ofa pedagogy ofthe public, a pedagogyforthe public anda pedagogyintheinterest of publicness. As an example of preparedness education intheinterest of publicness, this paper draws on one particular theoryfrom Japan:‘everyday-life preparedness[seikatsu bosai]’(Shiroshita2010; Yamori2011).
the public andintheinterest of publicness, which clarifes the nature of‘publics’in preparedness edu -cation scholarship.Itis also suggested that the particularity of the feld of preparedness educationis that preparedness pedagogies cannot solely be intheinterest of publicness but require all threeforms.
Public pedagogical approaches to disaster preparedness
Preston’s(2008) study on civil defence pedagogiesin the USin the 1950s and the UKin the 1980sis one of the frst works that considered‘preparedness’ within the domain of education. Accepting the equ iv-ocal nature of the term, Preston(2008) conceptualises‘preparedness’ as‘a set ofpedagogical strategies’, which encompass governments’ eforts to educate populationsin preventing and reducing disaster impacts, as well as raising their readinessfor disasters. As Preston(2008, 469)indicates, the challengefor preparedness researchliesin thefact unlike other synonyms such as‘civil defence’,‘homeland security’ and‘civil contingency’, preparednessis‘rarely pedagogicalin a didactic sense’. Consequently, these terms have allowed variousinterpretations:‘behavioural(‘Duck and Cover’ drills usedfrom the 1950s in the US)’;‘emotional(the 2005 DfES publication“Getting over 7/7”)’; and‘cognitive(the short‘Protect and Survive’ flms’ made by the Central Ofce ofInformation). These‘preparedness scripts’(Preston 2008, 469) arelearning and teaching materials which guide the publicin how to behave during and after an emergency. Preston thuslinks‘preparedness’ with‘pedagogy’ whichis about‘learning how to behave’ rather than‘curriculum’ whichis about‘what should belearnt’, which corresponds to one of the questions on‘public pedagogy’ raised by Burdick, Sandlin, and O’Malley(2014).
A clearlink between preparedness and public pedagogy was madein the study that examined a securityinformation campaignfor citizensin the UK named‘Preparingfor Emergencies’. Preston et al. (2011, 760) defne‘preparedness’ as‘aform of public pedagogy’, arguing that‘public education cam -paigns on“preparedness”’ should be considered‘within the sphere of education and pedagogy’,‘rather than being associated with publicinformation or marketing’,‘to consider theirfunctions beyond the provision offacts or state propaganda’. Preparedness as a public pedagogyis not only‘pedagogised’, but also‘politicised’(Preston et al. 2011, 760) because such stateinterventions aim toinculcatein the public a sense of responsibility and an activelearning spirit. As can be seen, the majorfocus of preparedness research has been on the pedagogical nature of preparedness, rather than a discussion on‘publicness’. Preston(2012)further classifes six‘pedagogies of preparedness’, placing‘public pedagogies’ as one of them. The termis referred to as the‘domains of popular culture which are notfrequently considered to be an educational arena’(Preston 2012, 5). This corresponds to Sandlin and Burdick’s(2010, 349 citedin Preston 2012, 5) broad suggestion that‘public pedagogies take placein‘spaces, sites, and languages of education andlearning that exist outside schools’. The book demonstrates the chang -ing and diversifying nature of disaster education, which has become‘a multi-modal phenomena’in terms of‘pedagogical modalities(afective,2 behavioural, cognitive, performative and“construction
kit”3)’, types of‘mass media’‘(print media, flm, books, television)’ and more recently, the use of‘social
Drawing on Preston(2008), Chadderton(2015a) conceptualises‘civil defence’(one of the synonyms of preparedness)in discussing disaster educationin Germany. She discusses the two dimensions of disaster education:lifelong education and public pedagogy. Her argumentis while disaster education is a type of education andlearning‘over thelife course, encompassingformal, nonformal andinformal education’(Chadderton 2015a, 589),it can also be defned as‘civil defence pedagogy’,‘a type of public pedagogy’,‘which contributes to the shaping narratives of nationalidentity’(Chadderton 2015a, 590). That‘civil defence pedagogy’is‘a type of public pedagogy’is accepted without a consideration as to whyitis the case.
Chadderton(2015b) alsolooked at the‘Resilient New Zealand’ programme promoted by the gov -ernment of New Zealand, which aims tointegrate resilience building at the national, regional and communitylevels.Itis suggested that‘resilience’ can be understood as a‘public pedagogy’ because ‘resilience has to be alearned behaviour and resilienceis therefore aform of politicalintervention – people have to be taught to be resilient’(Pollard 2014, 199 citedin Chadderton2015b, 3). Referring to Sandlin, O’Malley, and Burdick’s(2011) typology of public pedagogy, Chadderton does situate‘peda -gogies of resilience’ under‘dominant cultural discourses’, which are circulated through public policy, political discourse and widespread cultural values. However, thefocus of the analysisis on‘pedagogy’, and‘public’is takenfor granted.
I also referred to‘public pedagogy’in describing disaster preparednessin Japan.Examining a wide range oflaws, policies,initiatives and campaigns developed andimplemented by the government, researchers, not-for-proft organisations and educationalinstitutions, the paper uses the term toindicate one of the pedagogicalformsidentifedin the case of Japan(Kitagawa, forthcoming). The application of the termis generic, and again, no conceptual clarifcationis made as to why preparedness education can be considered as‘a type of public pedagogy’.
An argument may be made that the publicness of preparednessis‘obvious’in preparedness edu-cation because preparednessis a national agenda, anditis under theleadership of government that preparedness policies andinitiatives are developed; henceitis rather the‘pedagogy’ element that requiresinvestigation. Such perspectives explain the approaches takenin the preparedness research examined above.In agreement with Savage(2014, 80), this paper takes a step backward to revise such perspectives:‘public is theframing device used to qualify thepedagogical …. Afailure to defne the publicis afailure toframe the pedagogical’. Before discussing how toframe‘publics’, thefollowing section clarifes the majorissues raisedin the feld of public pedagogy.
‘Problematising public pedagogy’
According to Sandlin, O’Malley, and Burdick(2011),it wasin the 1970s when public pedagogy became noticeable as‘a subgenre ofinquiry’in education. Since then, public pedagogyliteratures have d is-cussed‘educational activity andlearningin extrainstitutional spaces and discourses’(Sandlin, O’Malley, and Burdick 2011, 338), some of which seek‘to broaden and deinstitutionalize conceptualizations of teaching,learning, and curriculum across the discipline of education’(Burdick, Sandlin, and O’Malley 2014, 2). The diversity of theinterpretation and the utilisation of‘public pedagogy’is substantiatedin the Handbook of Public Pedagogy composedin 2010, whichincludes a range offorms, processes and sites oflearning‘ininstitutions such as museums’,‘ininformal educational sites such as popular culture … and theInternet’ and‘through fgures and sites of activism,including publicintellectuals and g rass-roots social movements’(Burdick, Sandlin, and O’Malley 2014, 2).
(2014) study,in which Battaglia’s photographic works of anti-mafa movementsis positioned as a public pedagogy. This type of public pedagogyfalls under the second category of Sandlin et al.’s typology: ‘informallearning and educational experiences that take place outsideformal schooling within popular culture, popular media and everydaylife’, such as‘advertising, cinema and social media’(Salvio 2014, 101). Referring to Giroux, who contributed to the development of‘how public pedagogy … perpetuates dominant, neo-liberal values’, Salvio(2014, 101) suggests public pedagogy‘at timesimposes a hegem -onicforce, while at other timesis used to enact cultural and political resistance and counter-hegemonic possibilities as well as generate critical engagements with knowledge thatis difcult to recognise or to come to terms with’. Thisis then demonstrated through the analysis of Battaglia’s works. As Salvio (2014, 101) herselfindicates,‘public pedagogyis understood as“a fuid concept”’.
Thelack of theorisationsidentifedin the mapping exercise wasfurther clarifed by Burdick, Sandlin, and O’Malley(2014, 5) who asked three questions:(1) how are the terms‘public’ and‘pedagogy’ concep -tualised?(2) whatis‘pedagogical’ about‘public pedagogy’? and(3) why‘pedagogical’, not‘curricular’? Following the‘problematizing public pedagogy’ call, Savage(2014, 79) strongly states that‘bothpublic and pedagogy tend tolack clarity and together produce a theoretical haze, rendering the term both deceptive and theoretically airy’. This paper approaches these problems drawinginitially on Savage’s (2014) strategy, whichis to establish‘clarity over what we mean bypublic’(Savage2014, 80):
public is theframing device used to qualify thepedagogical. Byframing the pedagogical, the public maps the terrain through which pedagogicalforces are claimed to be operating ….Itis through this act offraming that a particular publicis evoked, and this‘evoked public’is that whichis ostensibly educated.
Researchers will be‘lostin the wildernessfrom the onset’if they‘do not clarify the public they are evoking when using the term public pedagogy’(Savage2014, 81). From here, Savage(2014)introduces three diferent publics: political, popular andconcrete. This paper frst employs thisframework to probe the question of‘public’in disaster preparedness research.
Political, popular andconcrete publics in preparedness education
The frst publicis political and was originatedin theidea of‘a specifc polity’in political philosophy. According to Savage(2014), this public shares the‘membership of a particular political feld’, being spatially bounded and referred to as‘the’ public rather than‘a’ public.In Sandlin et al.’s typology, this public comes under‘dominant cultural discourses’. An apparent example of this groupis the nation state. Almost all preparedness education researchis about political publics because the stateis the primary stakeholderin making sure of national survival and security. Savage(2014, 83)indicates two challengesin evoking a political version of public pedagogy. The frstis that despite the highlevel of generalisability of the‘political and cultural norms’ of this public,‘how exactly pedagogical processes operate’is not easy toinvestigate. This point does apply to preparedness research which tends tofocus on examining governments’ policy approaches; a political and cultural norm. Preston et al.’s(2011) work is one of the rare empirical studies thatinvestigated the operation of a pedagogical process. They con -ductedinterviews of policy-makers andfocus groups of two diferent ethnic communities to fnd out in Savage’s terms,‘what exactlyeducate the public’ and‘what educatesthe people’in the examination of the‘Preparingfor Emergencies’ campaign against‘terrorism threats’.4
their politics … are educated by many other peoples and politics …. the education of citizens within a public cannot be understood byfocusing solely on the educativeinfuences produced within that specifc political public’. Such‘interconnectedness’isincreasingly recognisedin the feld of disaster management,5 and pedagogiesfor preparedness should also take theinterconnected nature of dis
-astersinto consideration.
Popular publics have been dominantin cultural studies that treat‘everyday’‘cultural texts, artefacts and discourses as educative’(Savage 2014, 84). This corresponds to Sandlin et al.’s typology‘popular culture and everydaylife’.‘Popular publics arelesslikely to be spatially referenced, because they come into being through processes of cultural distribution and consumption that often transcend specifc geographical or political felds’(Savage 2014, 84). As opposed to anindividual being‘the political public’, anindividual can potentially belimitless‘popular publics’, each of which operating diferently within and across diferent political publics(Savage 2014, 85). Such phenomenonis amplifed under rapid technological advancement and cultural globalisation. This group of publicsis‘self-organising’(Warner 2002 citedin Savage 2014, 84) and self-nurturing, but theirformation depends on‘complex processes of address and response’ because‘the way this publicis assembled and the scale ofitspublicness depends on the extent to which the act of addressing an unknown pubic … elicits a response’(Savage 2014, 84). Popular publics often communicate about disaster-related matters via social media such as blogs and Twitter. Disaster alert applications, such as the American Red Cross’ mobile apps(2016) or‘Disaster Alert’ developed by the Pacifc Disaster Center(2016), which are becoming widely available, can also evoke popular publics because of their borderless nature, although these platforms are provided by professional bodies, they are not necessarily‘self-organising’.
The third publicis typifed as concrete. By this Savage(2014) means aform of public thatis‘evoked to analyse spatially bounded spaces oflearning,including culturalinstitutions … or geographically defned spaces’. This public difersfrom other publicsforitsfocus on‘the concrete audience’, who are a group of a public‘bounded by’ an event or a shared physical space, such as theatre plays and public demonstra-tions(Savage 2014, 86). Such afeatureleads to specifc processes of address and response. The scale of addressis‘relatively tight’ sinceitis the choice of the addressees to be addressed through attending a theatrical performance or a demonstration. However,‘the concrete nature of these publics has the potential to become popular, and this can havepolitical implications’(Savage2014, 87) because current technology permits the sharing of almost any address. A number of spatially-bounded preparedness projects have been developed around the world, theseinclude the September 11 Memorial & Museum in the US, the Disaster Reduction and Human RenovationInstitutionin Japan6 or the Tangiwai Memorial
in New Zealand.7 These sites are built on the basis of the‘earnest wish of people who experienced’ the
disaster‘to better prepare our society against … disasters’(Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation Institution2015). Their purposes are clearly defned, putforward and shared with addressees. Concrete publicsfall under‘informalinstitutions and public spaces’in the Sandlin, O’Malley, and Burdick’s(2011) typology. These sites arefrom the outset, built with specifc pedagogical aims, and the visitors are very much aware of what to expect.
A pedagogy for the public,of the public andin theinterest of publicnessin preparedness education
Biesta(2014, 16) views that the role of public pedagogy scholarshipis tojoin‘the educational and the political’ andlocate‘both frmlyin the public sphere’. Drawing on Marquand(2004 citedin Biesta 2014), Biesta(2014, 17) starts by articulating the discussion on‘the decline of the public sphere’.8 Biesta defnes
‘the public sphere’ as a set of‘institutions and activities that mediate the relations between society and the state’(Mitchell 1995, 116 citedin Biesta 2014, 17). The public sphere has been threatened because the publiclogic of democratic decision-making, public duty and collective-interest have been taken over by the neoliberal marketlogic of choice, quality and self-interest, turning citizensinto‘consumers of public services’. The public sphere should not be considered as‘a physicallocation but as a certain quality of socialinteraction’,in which‘the publicinterest’is defned and‘public goods’ are produced. For Marquand(2004, 4 citedin Biesta 2014, 18), the public sphere has‘its own norms and decision rules’. The human relationshipsin the public sphere therefore diferfrom those of‘love,friendship and personal connection’ or of‘interest andincentive’ that characterise the private sphere.
In probing what‘norms and decision rules’ characterise the public sphere, Biesta turns to Arendt’s theory on theinterrelationships between action, plurality andfreedom.‘Action’, whichis one of the modes of human beings’‘activelife’(Arendt 1958 citedin Biesta 2014, 18),is‘an endinitself, andits defning quality’is‘freedom’ – thefreedom‘to takeinitiative, to begin something new, to bring something new into the world’.‘“Freedom as beginning”implies thatfreedomis not aninnerfeeling or a private expe -rience but something thatis by necessity a public and hence a political phenomenon(Biesta 2014, 18)’. Freedom hence requires a public space to makeits appearance. Freedom thus only exists in action, but ‘we cannot actinisolation’(Biesta2014, 19):
IfI were to begin something but no one would respond, nothing wouldfollowfrom myinitiative, and, as a result, my beginnings would not comeinto the world. I would not appearin the world. Butif … others do take up my beginnings,I do comeinto the world, andin precisely this moment – but not before or after –Iam free.
Actions are never possible without others, without plurality.
As soon as we erase plurality – the otherness of others by attempting to control how they respond to ourinitiatives – we deprive others of their actions and theirfreedom, and as a result, we deprive ourselves of our possibility to act, and hence of ourfreedom.(Biesta 2014, 19)
Pluralityis therefore‘the condition of human action’(Arendt 1958, 8 citedin Biesta2014, 19), andit is only under the condition of plurality that actionis possible andfreedom can appear –‘democratic freedom-as-beginning, notliberalfreedom-as-sovereignty or communitarianfreedom-as-sameness’ (Biesta2014, 20). Once‘actingin concert’(Arendt 1958 citedin Biesta2014, 20)is reduced by regulating or fltering public spaces and by‘prescribing and policing whatis“proper” and whatis“deviant”’, the conditions under which actionis possible andfreedom can appear will be eliminated.
With the above understanding of‘actingin concert’ to‘begin something new’, Biesta(2014, 21) ofers three‘readings’ of public pedagogy and explores what kind of activities are appropriatein the public sphere.‘Each provides a diferent conception of whatit means to make pedagogy public’ and‘to conductintentional educational work‘in’ the public sphere’. Biesta emphasises‘in which public sphere’ is signifcant because the three conceptions of public pedagogy consider the‘location’ diferently, and therefore‘the connection between pedagogy andpublic’ diferently.What distinguishes the three most, however,‘lies preciselyin what the public pedagogue does’.
in the US and the‘Getting over 7/7’ flm madein 2005in the UK are the examples of states actting as pedagogues andinstructing their populations‘how to behave’in an emergency situation.
Biesta’s view that a pedagogyfor the public risks of‘the erasure of plurality’ and‘the conditionsfor politics andfreedom’ can also beidentifedin the context of preparedness education. For example, based on critical whiteness studies and critiques of white supremacy, Preston(2008,2010) argues that the protection of whiteness, particularly that of the white middle-classfamily, was prioritisedin civil defence pedagogiesin the USin the 1950s and the UKin the 1980s, which was‘ajoint and refexive project’ of the states, communities andfamilies. He goes on to argue that the state deployed‘racialised and eugenic discourse’ to emphasise theimportance of the continuity of whitenessin the context of an‘emergency’ – both real and‘imagined’ –for‘symbolic maintenance’(Preston 2008, 480). Preston (2015) alsolooks at US government propaganda flms of the 1960s. Promoting post-nuclear survival by building protected schools and otherfacilities, those flms conveyed another message about racial assimilation. An absence of disaster educationin Germanyis an unusual example of a pedagogyfor the public. Chadderton(2015a) argues that one of the major reasonsfor the German state not promoting disaster education derivesfrom Germany’s war history – the state has to portrayitself as‘afunctioning democracy’, which successfully provides the citizens with safety. Thisis the‘lesson’ given to the citizens – but by not ofering public disaster education.
Biesta(2014, 22) then moves on to suggest the nextlevel of public pedagogy: a pedagogyofthe public.In orderfor public pedagogy to be operated as‘aform of human togethernessin whichfreedom can appear’, he argues that the pedagogicalform has to be‘learning rather thaninstruction’.‘The peda-gogical workis not donefrom the outside…butislocated within democratic processes and practices’. Nominated by the public themselves, the pedagogue plays the role of afacilitatorin animagined ‘giant adult education class’. No prescribed curriculumis necessaryfor this public, but there may be a set of agreements to be shared. Referring to Freire’s notion of conscientization,‘a process aimed at the generation of critical awareness and“critical consciousness”’, Biesta(2014)indicates that thisform of public pedagogy values the processes of‘collective politicallearning’, which relates‘much better to the idea of plurality’. The perspective that preparednessis pedagogical, not the transmission ofinformation, sits wellin thisform of public pedagogy.
For Biesta(2014), both a pedagogyfor the public(which permits the authority of‘theinstructor’) and a pedagogy of the public(which shifts responsibilitiesfrom the collective toindividuals) eradicate‘the public condition of plurality under which actionis possible andfreedom can appear’. Moving beyond these restrictedforms of public pedagogies, Biesta(2014, 23) arguesfor an alternativeform, which works ‘at theintersection of education and politics’,in pursuance of democracy – thatis, a pedagogyinthe interest of publicness. Thisform of public pedagogy aims at‘an enactment of a concernfor“publicness”’, whichis‘a concernfor the public quality of human togetherness and thusfor the possibility of actors and events to become public’. Becoming publicis therefore about‘the achievement offorms of human togethernessin which actionis possible andfreedom can appear’. The pedagogicalformis nolonger instruction orfacilitation as was the casein the previous twoforms of public pedagogies, but becomes more‘activist’,‘experimental’ and‘demonstrative’ (Biesta 2014, 23). Being activist means that the action aims to develop‘real alternatives’ –‘alternative ways of being and doing’ and‘of actingin concert’ –‘that reclaim opportunitiesfor public relationships-in-plurality’. Such alternatives‘resist and push back’ both ‘thelogic of the market’ and‘incursionsfrom the private sphere’. Such alternatives are therefore bound to be experimental.‘New ways of‘doing’ schooling’,for example, are suggested –instead offocusing on ‘individual advantage, competition and excellence,’‘public ways of actingin concert’ can be developed through‘cooperation and the hard work ofliving togetherin plurality and diference’. Thisform of public pedagogyis‘a pedagogy of demonstration’(Biesta 2014, 23) –‘not a curriculum that has to be taught or has to belearned’ – because‘suchforms of experimental activism … demonstrate … that things not only should be done diferently but actually can be done diferently’, and that‘thereis always an alternative … against the often heard claimfrom politicians and policy makers that thereis no alternative’. Thus, a pedagogyin theinterest of publicnessis‘entirely public, bothinits orientation andinits execution’ (Biesta2014 23). For Biesta,itis thisform of public pedagogy that restores the public sphere,in which the publiclogic of democratic decision-making, public duty and collective-interestis served.
Thereis not sufcient evidence on disaster preparednessinitiatives which are activist, experimental and demonstrative because preparedness education research has sofarfocused on the policy and practice at the nationallevel. Amongst what Preston(2012, 6) refers to as‘folk preparedness pedago -gies’, whichis an under-researched area being outside of‘ofcial discourse’, a pedagogyin theinterest of publicness may befound. The challengefor researchersis, however,folk pedagogies tend to be ‘individual depiction of the best strategies to undertakein an emergency’(Preston2012, 6), which are lesslikely to be oriented toward‘actingin concert’ to allow‘relationships-in-plurality’. Pedagogies of ‘transmedia’ mentioned earlier also have a potential. Transmedia has changed the perception of‘citizens’ from‘“passive” responders’ to ofcial correspondents, and to‘active agents’.It can be considered that pedagogies of transmedia are activist, experimental and demonstrative. Nevertheless, to what extent transmedia activities have ‘plurality’is questionable, given the individualised nature of new media discussed earlier. One probable model of‘doing’ preparedness diferently and‘in concert’is whatis referred to as‘everyday-life preparedness[seikatsu bosai]’(Shiroshita2010; Yamori2011) promoted by a group of preparedness education researchersin Japan.
Everyday-life preparednessin theinterest of publicness
Everyday-life preparednessinvolves a new conceptualisation of disaster preparedness. Yamori, one of the advocates of everyday-life preparedness, explains thatitis‘rootedinlife as a whole’ and‘embedded in the culture oflife’:
Everyday-life preparedness does not consider disaster prevention/reduction as anindependent activity separated from other aspects of everydaylife. Rather,it emphasisesintegrating disaster prevention/reduction activitiesinto every activityin dailylife – rangingfrom work, study, hobby andleisure at theindividuallevel, to elder care, children’s safety,festivals and sport events at the societallevel.In other words, disaster prevention/reduction activities must be‘builtin’ to these daily activities.(2011, 1)
Everyday-life preparedness requires a shiftfrom the preparedness of which the goalis‘optimisation’ to a preparedness which starts with‘what your own circumstances are’(Yamori 2011, 29).When pre-parednessisinstructed by the state and taught by a small number of experts,local communities and individual citizens tend to be reluctant to getinvolved due to alack of resources and time.‘Built-in’ preparednessis not additional. One example of everyday-life preparednessis a community project called ‘Rediscovering My Hometown’ organised by a group of citizensfor the enhancement oflocal children’s disaster preparedness(Watanabe 2000 citedin Yamori2011, 69, 70).Without a reference to‘disaster preparedness’, the projectis designed as afun educational activityfor the children to walk around and learn more about their hometown. Communicating with thelocal population, the children fnd out where convenience stores, petrol stations or hospitals are, where vulnerable peoplelive and whether any hazards and risks exist. The children put together collected pieces ofinformation and create a local map, whichis sharedin the community. Such a grassrootsinitiativeis considered efectivein the development of community preparedness(Yamori 2011).
The signifcance of‘built-in’ preparedness has been reinforced since the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of 2011(Kitagawa, forthcoming). Both the government and the population realised that the existing preparedness approach was not sufcient, evenifindividual disaster reduction systems were all optimised, and that there was a need tofocus more on building‘a sense of community’,‘a helping culture’ and‘readiness as usual’(Yamori 2011, 30) to build‘a wealth of culture of disaster preparedness’ to cohabit with natural disasters(Kitagawa 2015b).In thislight, everyday-life preparednessfocuses more on the notion of‘disaster reduction’ that appreciates the benefts of nature and to minimise possible damage, than the notion of‘disaster prevention’ that controls the power of nature(Yamori 2011, 3).
Itis premature to claim every pedagogy of everyday-life preparednessisin theinterest of publicness, however, the pedagogicallocation, the pedagogicalform and the pedagogue of everyday-life prepar-edness correspond to those of a pedagogyfor theinterest of publicness.In the case of‘Rediscovering My Hometown’,for example,itisinitiated and delivered by the general public; a citizens’ group andlocal children. They voluntarily, actively and collectively engagedin preparedness building and experientially tried out and yielded a new preparedness methodology. Moving awayfrom the mode ofinstruction or facilitation, both the organisers and the children developed their own version of preparedness, exercis -ing agency, through walking aroundin togetherness, collectinginformation and communicating with thelocal population; this was a pedagogy of demonstration. Thelocal map, which was the output of a democratic process, became public property. Thus, the‘Rediscovering My Hometown’ project can be considered as entirely public, bothinits orientation andinits execution.
Conclusion
‘publics’in preparednessliterature can be classifed underpolitical, popular andconcrete publics, the paper demonstrated that theframework does not necessarily capture the current debatesin the feld of preparedness education. The paper hence chose Biesta’s theory, which addresses theforms of ped-agogies and pedagogues, as well as thelocations of pedagogies, emphasising the politicalfunctions of public pedagogies. Theframework of a pedagogy ofthe public,forthe public andintheinterest of publicness has allowed a depiction of a variety of approachesin preparedness education, rangingfrom a state-ledinstruction model, to anindividual-learning model and to an everyday-life model. The paper went on to suggest that everyday-life preparedness has a potential to become a pedagogyin theinterest of publicness, being an alternative experimental pedagogy of demonstration,in which citizens actin togetherness to develop their own preparedness methodologies.
The above analysis thus confrms that preparedness education can comfortably be situated within the feld of public pedagogy, with the clarifcation of the diferencesin‘publics’, utilising Biesta’s theory. Preparedness education research hasfocused on the‘pedagogy’ aspect of public pedagogy, overlooking the‘public’ aspect ofit.Itis argued that the theoretical connection between preparedness education scholarship and public pedagogy scholarship can be enhanced through the diferentiation between a pedagogy ofthe public,forthe public andintheinterest of publicness.Itis also suggested that being aware of diferent publics will also broaden the areas ofinquiriesin the feld of preparedness education.
Onefurther observationis thatitis probably unrealisticfor a country to have allits preparedness education taking aform of a pedagogy intheinterest of publicness.Infact, preparedness education should not entirely be pedagogies intheinterest of publicness.In orderfor a population to be prepared for various disaster scenarios, preparedness education requires the combination of all threeforms of pedagogies: state-led instructions, facilitated individual learning and act-in-concert civic activities. Thisis the specifcfeature that disaster preparedness entails. Forinstance, the frst responders after a large-scale disaster should be organised by the government – the central and/or the regional – rather than citizens because theformer catersfor resources and equipment.In comparison with Biesta’s ‘evo-lutionary’ perspective that public pedagogies should move awayfrom a pedagogyofthe public and a pedagogy forthe public to become a pedagogyintheinterest of publicness, the goal of preparedness educationis not necessarily about evolvinginto the third model, but balancing between the three (Kitagawa,forthcoming).
Two particular agendas remain, which require clarifcationin order to establish the relationship between preparedness education and public pedagogy. The frstis about how to deal with public-pr i-vate collaborationin preparedness thatisincreasingin,for example, New Zealand and Japan. Both the governments and experts argue that the notion of collaborationis very much at the centre of prepar-edness building(Kitagawa, forthcoming). Does the feld of public pedagogy accept suchinvolvement of the‘private’? How can we understand such collaborations that occursin the public sphere? These questions deserveinvestigation. The other agendais a needforinquiriesinto the practice of built-in pre-paredness.Ishihara and Matsumura(2014),for example, propose three diferent types of everyday-life preparedness: everyday-life preparednessinthelocal community, everyday-life preparednessinthefamily, and variousresourcesfor everyday-life preparedness.Empirical studies to probe how they manifestin practice, and what their processes of actingin concert are required.
Notes
1. Thereis a book entitled Disaster Education (2011), edited by Shaw, Shiwaku and Takeuchi. The authors specialise in environmental studies.
2. Designed as strategiesfor emotional managementfor citizens to cope with trauma and upheaval, aiming tofoster in them‘a positive emotional attitude to preparedness’(Preston2012, 4).
3. Meaning‘DoIt Yourselfinstructions’, provide guidance to citizensfor them to construct their own shelters or to storefood and waterin the event of a crisis.
4. Aleafet was distributed to every householdin the UK, which wasfollowed by a television campaign.
6. A museum and researchinstitute builtin memory of the 1995 Hanshin/Awaji Earthquakein Japan, which killed 6500 people.
7. A night express plunged into the fooded Whangaehu River at Tangiwai on Christmas Eve 1954, killing 151 passengers. The worst railway disasterin New Zealand’s history.
8. Marquand’s termis the public‘domain’. Habermasfavours the public‘sphere’. Biesta treats both as equivalent.
Disclosure statement
No potential confict ofinterest was reported by the author.
Funding
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Councilin the UK[grant number ES/K000233].
References
Adamson, C. 2014.“A SocialWork Lensfor a Disaster-informed Curriculum.” Advancesin Social Work and Welfare Education 16(2): 7–22.
American Red Cross. 2016. “Mobile Apps.” Accessed May 11, 2016. http://www.redcross.org/get-help/prepare-for -emergencies/mobile-apps.
Biesta, G. 2014.“Making Pedagogy Public: For the Public, of the Public, orin theInterest of Publicness.”InProblematizing Public Pedagogy, edited by J. Burdick, J. A. Sandlin, and M. P. O’Malley, 15–25.London: Routledge.
Burdick, J., J. A. Sandlin, and M. P. O’Malley. 2014.Problematizing Public Pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Chadderton, C. 2015a.“Civil Defence Pedagogies and Narratives of Democracy: DisasterEducationin Germany.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 34(5): 589–606.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2015.1073186.
Chadderton, C. 2015b. “Pedagogies of Community Resilience and the Implications for Social Justice: Contradictions from New Zealand”. A conference paper presented at theEuropean Conference on Educational Researchin Budapest, September 11, 2015.
Giroux, H. A. 2004.“Public Pedagogy and the Politics of Neo-liberalism: Making the Political more Pedagogical.”Policy Futuresin Education 2(3): 494–651.
The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Memorial Disaster Reduction and Human RenovationInstitution. 2015. “Message fromExecutive Director.” Accessed February 20, 2016. http://www.dri.ne.jp/english/center/index.html
Ishihara, R., and N. Matsumura.2014.“The Development andEvaluation of Teaching Materialfor Disaster Reductionin Daily Life.”Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers 70(1): 1–12.
Izumi, T., and R. Shaw. 2014. “Civil Society and Knowledge, Education and Training in Risk Reduction.”In Civil Society Organization and Disaster Risk Reduction, edited by T.Izumi and R. Shaw, 115–133. Tokyo: Springer.
Johnson, V. A., K. R. Ronan, D. M. Johnston, and R. Peace. 2014.“Implementing Disaster PreparednessEducationin New Zealand Primary Schools.” Disaster Prevention and Management 23(4): 370–380.
Kitagawa, K. 2010.Lifelong Learningin England and Japan: A Comparative Analysis. Saarbrücken:Lambert Academic. Kitagawa, K. 2015a.“Continuity and Changein DisasterEducationin Japan.” History of Education 44(3): 371–390.http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2014.979255.
Kitagawa, K. 2015b.“Living with an Active Volcano:Informal and CommunityLearningfor Preparednessin South of Japan.” InVolcano Crisis Communication: Observingthe Volcano World, edited by C. J. Fearnley, D. Bird, G. Jolly, K. Haynes, and B. McGuire, 1–13. Berlin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11157_2015_12.
Kitagawa, K. Forthcoming.“Disaster Preparedness, Adaptive Politics andLifelongLearning: A Casefrom Japan.”
Kitagawa, K., J. Preston, and C. Chadderton. 2016.“Preparingfor Disaster: A Comparative Analysis ofEducationfor Critical Infrastructure Collapse.”Journalfor Risk Research.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1178661.
Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. 2016.“Civil DefenceEmergency Management Act 2002.” Accessed February 22, 2016. http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/cdem-framework/civil-defence-emergency -management-act-2002/.
Pacifc Disaster Center. 2016.“Disaster Alert.” Accessed May 11, 2016.http://www.pdc.org/solutions/tools/disaster-alert -app/.
Pollard, T. J. 2014.“Education, the Politics of Resilience, and theWar on Youth: A Conversation with Brad Evans.” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 36(3): 193–213.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2014.917902. Preston, J. 2008.“Protect and Survive:‘whiteness’ and the Middle‐class Familyin Civil Defence Pedagogies.” Journal of
Education Policy 23(5): 469–482.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680930802054412.
Preston, J. 2015.“Two Nations Underground: Building Schools to Survive NuclearWar and Desegregationin the 1960s.” Race Ethnicity and Education 23(5): 1–12.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1095174.
Preston, J., B. Avery, N. Chakrabarty, and C. Edmonds.2011.“Emergency Preparedness as Public Pedagogy: The Absent– Presence of Racein‘Preparingfor Emergencies’.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 30(6): 749–762.http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/02601370.2011.625518.
Preston, J., C. Chadderton, and K. Kitagawa. 2014.“The‘State ofException’ and Disaster Education: A Multilevel Conceptual Framework withImplicationsfor Social Justice.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 12(4): 437–456.
Salvio, P. M. 2014.“Reconstructing Memory through the Archives: Public Pedagogy, Citizenship andLetizia Battaglia’s Photographic Record of Mafa Violence.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 22(1): 97–116.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681 366.2013.877620.
Sandlin, J. A., M. A. O’Malley, and J. Burdick. 2011.“Mapping the Complexity of Public Pedagogy Scholarship: 1894–2010.” Review of Educational Research 81(3): 338–375.http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413395.
Sandlin, J. A., B. D. Schultz, and J. Burdick, eds. 2010.Handbook of Public Pedagogy: Exploring and Learning Beyond Schooling. New York: Routledge.
Savage, G. C. 2014.“Chasing the Phantoms of Public Pedagogy: Political, Popular and Concrete Publics.”InProblematizing Public Pedagogy, edited by J. Burdick, J. A. Sandlin, and M. P. O’Malley, 79–90.London: Routledge.
Shaw, R., K. Shiwaku, and Y. Takeuchi. 2011.Disaster Education. Bingley:Emerald.
Shiroshita, H. 2010.“Towards the Actualisation of CollaborativeLearningfor Disaster Prevention”[bosaikyoiku nojitsugen ni mukete].In Safety Sciencefor Disaster Prevention and Reduction – A Proposalin Building a Safe and Secure Society [bosai/ gensai no tameno shakaianzengaku – anzen/anshin na shakai no kochiku eno teigen], edited by Faculty of Safety Science, Kansai University, 98–114. Kyoto: Mineruva shobo.
UN/ISDR(United Nations Secretariat of theInternational Strategyfor Disaster Reduction) 2008.Disaster Preparednessfor Efective Response: Guidance andIndicator PackageforImplementing Priority Five ofthe Hyogo Framework. Geneva: UN/ ISDR and the United Nations Ofcefor Coordination of Humanitarian Afairs(UN/OCHA).
Watanabe, T. 2000.“Trialsin Communities Five Years after the Great Hanshin-AwajiEarthquake.” The Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39(2): 188–196.