Research Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Total Possible Score: 35.00
Summarizes the Selected Article Including Discussions Surrounding the Purpose of the Study, the Methodology Utilized, the Results Obtained, and the Conclusions Drawn by the Author(s) Utilizing Questions Posed in the Reading
Total: 8.00
Distinguished - Comprehensively summarizes the selected article including discussions surrounding the purpose of the study, the methodology utilized, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn by the author(s) utilizing questions posed in the reading. Includes the full citation for the article formatted in accurate APA style.
Proficient - Summarizes the selected article including discussions surrounding the purpose of the study, the methodology utilized, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn by the author(s) utilizing questions posed in the reading. Includes the full citation for the article accurately formatted in APA style. One of these areas is slightly underdeveloped.
Basic - Partially summarizes the selected article including discussions surrounding the purpose of the study, the methodology utilized, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn by the author(s) utilizing questions posed in the reading. Two or three of these areas are underdeveloped and/or the citation is not accurately formatted in APA style.
Below Expectations - Attempts to summarize the selected article including discussions surrounding the purpose of the study, the methodology utilized, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn by the author(s) utilizing questions posed in the reading; however; all of these areas are significantly underdeveloped and the citation is not accurately formatted in APA style.
Non-Performance - The summary of the selected article including discussions surrounding the purpose of the study, the methodology utilized, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn by the author(s) utilizing questions posed in the reading is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Determines the Strengths of Each Section of the Paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) Utilizing Questions Posed in the Reading
Total: 8.00
Distinguished - Clearly and accurately determines the strengths of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) utilizing questions posed in the reading.
Proficient - Determines the strengths of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) utilizing questions posed in the reading. Details are slightly inaccurate or unclear.
Basic - Partially determines the strengths of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) utilizing questions posed in the reading. Relevant details are inaccurate and/or unclear.
Below Expectations - Attempts to determine the strengths of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion); however, the questions posted in the reading are not utilized and/or are inaccurate and unclear.
Non-Performance - The determination of the strengths of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) utilizing questions posed in the reading are either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Determines the Weaknesses of Each Section of the Paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) Utilizing Questions Posed in the Reading
Total: 8.00
Distinguished - Clearly and accurately determines the weaknesses of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) utilizing questions posed in the reading.
Proficient - Determines the weaknesses of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) utilizing questions posed in the reading. Minor details are slightly inaccurate or unclear.
Basic - Partially determines the weaknesses of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) utilizing questions posed in the reading. Relevant details are inaccurate and/or unclear.
Below Expectations - Attempts to determine the weaknesses of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion); however, the questions posed in the reading are not utilized and/or are inaccurate and unclear.
Non-Performance - The determination of the weaknesses of each section of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) utilizing questions posed in the reading are either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Discusses the Significance of the Research Utilizing Questions Posed in the Reading
Total: 8.00
Distinguished - Comprehensively discusses the significance of the research utilizing questions posed in the reading.
Proficient - Discusses the significance of the research utilizing questions posed in the reading. Minor details are missing.
Basic - Minimally discusses the significance of the research utilizing questions posed in the reading. Relevant details are missing.
Below Expectations -Attempts to discuss the significance of the research; however, significant details are missing and did not utilize the questions posed in the reading.
Non-Performance - The discussion of the significance of the research utilizing questions posed in the reading is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Total: 1.00
Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.
Proficient - Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic - Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations - Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.
Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: APA Formatting
Total: 0.50
Distinguished - Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient - Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.
Basic - Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below Expectations - Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Page Requirement
Total: 1.00
Distinguished - The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Proficient - The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Basic - The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Below Expectations - The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Resource Requirement
Total: 0.50
Distinguished - Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient - Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic - Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below Expectations - Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.
Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Name
Affiliation/Institution
Course
Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Introduction
Communication, particularly during a hazardous event, is indeed crucial. However, with the acerbity of such events increasing, there have been reports suggesting that the approach taken could be elevating the severity of the incidents. Different researchers have weighed in on the issue at hand, and many believe that the approach to communication pre and during hazardous activities should be altered. In their article, Steelman and McCaffrey (2012) sought to investigate the best practices in risk and crisis communication. The two authors believe that as the world is changing, other things including how we deal with hazardous events should also change. Just like the society, other facets within it also need to change including the approach that people take with regards to solving recurring problems.
The purpose of Steelman and McCaffrey’s study was to assess whether approaching communication holistically before and during a dangerous event could ultimately lead to more desired outcomes. Communication is indeed an important tool to help avert the major issues that are associated with hazardous events but with the use of traditional means of communication, the response teams have only worked to elevate the danger. According to Steelman and McCaffrey, the emphasis has solely been on suppression instead of the adoption of newer flexible strategies that focus on large-scale response during hazards. Effective communication has also not been taken up as an efficient tool to help hazard prone areas, but according to the study at hand, it can enhance response and contribute to reducing damage while also lowering cost to avert danger. The above arguments as stated by the researchers with an emphasis on the importance of adopting and using better communication mechanisms particularly during events such as fires.
As per the article, risk, and crisis communication needs to work in tandem to ensure that hazardous events are prevented, and the information is flowing freely. The study clearly states that the tactics used should not solely focus on preventing the spread of events or harm but should also ensure that information reaches people at the right time and through the most efficient way. Steelman and McCaffrey also mentioned the importance of trust, local values, management objectives and potential outcomes as well as knowledge of practices and conditions as some of the important factors to consider before enforcing or adopting fire management approaches. The argument here was that the strategies are often hindered because of an unwilling community that is solely dependent on old strategies to fight fire or other disasters.
Steelman and McCaffrey opted to use the qualitative research method together with interviews as their method of collecting data. To conduct this study, teams were sent to three places that had fires and that had used different management strategies while fighting the fires. The three fires include Gap Fire on Los Padres National Forest which used a full suppression method to fight the fire, the Cascade Fire on the Custer National Forest which used a modified suppression strategy, and the Gunbarrel Fire on the Shoshone National Forest which used a transitionary tactic that began with monitoring followed by confinement and finally containment. For the interviewees (56 in total),a non-probability sampling technique known as purposive sampling was used and only key federal agency local officials who were working on the fires were interviewed while community members were selected based on convenience. The questions the interviewees were asked focused solely on activities that transpired before, during as well as the respondents’ thoughts on the management of the fires.
In all the three fires, different results were obtained as it was anticipated because of the different fire management strategies that were employed. For the Gap Fire, communication was primarily unidirectional mainly because of the use of traditional media including kiosks, radio, and newspapers. Complaints were raised regarding communication because there lacked clarity. Conversely, IMT’s interactive approach to communication was acknowledged by many people because they felt as though they were a part of the process. In the Cascade Fire, the findings were different because unlike in the Gap Fire, interactive communication was employed and mainly included meetings with the communities around the fires. Although other traditional, unidirectional mechanisms were used, the feedback was mostly positive because of the level of detail and transparency that was advocated. Like the Cascade Fire, the team fighting the Gunbarrel Fire also used interactive communication while also combining some traditional unidirectional communication including the use of kiosks and radio. The reaction to the response in Gunbarrel Fire was positive and with regards to the characteristics of effective communication that were met, the Gunbarrel Fire got the highest rating followed by the Cascade Fire while the Gap Fire came last.
In their conclusion, the authors set the record straight by stating that effective communication might not directly lead to the adoption of newer and flexible strategies. However, they also continue to indicate that paying attention to communication strategies during hazardous events is often associated with positive results. While planning for hazard management schemes, it is indeed important to ensure that factors such as social context are factored in. The authors also advised on planning ahead of events which they stated could contribute to ensuring that information flows smoothly if disaster struck. Effective communication is indeed crucial to managing hazards, and if people refuse to refute their static and traditional methods, then the world will continue to experience worse disasters.
Weaknesses and Strengths
Introduction
Steelman and McCaffrey do not explicitly state the purpose of the paper which makes it difficult for a reader to know the purpose of the research. It is not possible for a reader to establish what the researchers want to achieve with the work. However, the working hypothesis entails how effective communication before and during a fire would be associated with acceptance of more flexible fire management. It 's hard for the audience to identify what the authors want to achieve eventually precisely. Normally, research articles have a clearly stated purpose such that the target readers can see what the writers want to achieve. Omitting the purpose statement and replacing it with a working statement requires that an average person reads several times to establish why the researchers did the study. Readers often attach a lot of meaning to the purpose statement and its absence lowers the quality of the paper.
The title captures well the subject of the research. The research focuses on the importance of communication in managing natural disasters. The title is descriptive which allows the readers to identify what the research is all about. At a glance, one observes that the research deals with best practices in crisis communication when managing natural hazards. The article then introduces the subject and slowly allows the reader to see the importance of the topic. The introduction is well arranged with ideas flowing sequentially. The paper starts by p...