Abstract
World-wide disaster events are increasing in both number and intensity. This is particularly evident forIndonesia, which is hazard-prone due its geographical and geological position. This condition is
exacerbated by Indonesia’s demographic diversity, with millions of people currently living at or below
the poverty line. The government of Indonesia has put in place disaster management plans and policies
both to deliver effective disaster response and to prepare for and mitigate impacts of disaster.
Kampung Siaga Bencana (loosely translated as Disaster Resilient Villages) or KSBs is one of the
government’s flagship programmes to empower communities with the ability to protect themselves
from disasters. The membership of this organisation is voluntary in nature, but the establishment of
these KSBs is funded and initiated by the Ministry of Social Affairs. Once established, KSBs are required
to be resilient and self-sufficient in implementing their activities.
From KSBs programme’s inception in 2011, there are presently 987 KSBs. From this number, some KSBs
have ceased their activities. However, some KSBs can still sustain constant challenges, both from their
own members and externally from their communities. They manage criticism about service quality,
additional responsibilities to seek funds to implement activities, feeling abandoned by the government
to potentially compromising their lives and livelihood, while continuing to perform their mandated
tasks without any financial incentives in return. These difficult conditions pose a question that
constutes the propulsion of this doctoral research: why do some KSBs still sustain as an organisation?
This doctorate’s original contribution to knowledge is an Interactive Model that explains why some
KSBs are resilient and able to sustain their activities. Each component of the Model demonstrates how
the research is capable to fill in the gaps existed in disaster management literature, including concerns
of (i) lack of research explicating bottom-up/localised approaches in community resilience
programmes instigated mostly because of the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon advocacy in determining
resilience; (ii) lack of research that observe community’s participation influencing community’s
disaster resilience; (iii) lack of research that investigate resilience in an organisation level with the
emphasis on how organisation could maintain its resilience and (iv) the absence of an explanative
research uncovering why some KSBs are resilient and continue to sustain their activities.
This Model is developed through the application of a pragmatism grounded theory method which
draws on Anselm Strauss and Julia Corbin’s work. Four KSBs are recruited for Focus Group Discussions
(FGDs) and seven technical subject matters for interviews through phases of convenience, purposive,
theoretical and theoretical group interview samplings according to grounded theory guidelines.
Results from the FGDs and interviews are transcribed and treated as the primary data sources
complemented by journal notes, memos and documents including digital sources.
Analysis was initiated by tagging the interview transcriptions to establish sub-categories and levelled up
to categories through initial coding. Axial coding was then carried out to dissect factors that could
lead to the development of a main phenomenon. The axial coding generated a trajectory to constitute
theory construction utilising a Paradigm Model Framework. In proceeding with the technique,
however, the researcher was cognizant to the fact that the analysis could not reflect the dynamic and
complex relationships among the factors influencing the main phenomenon. Hence, the researcher
found that a conditional and Consequential Matrix which features a process analysis could remedy
what was lacking in the previous technique. The process analysis could efficiently capture the dynamics
of the interrelated factors which resulted in a phased ground-up storyline that produce the Interactive
Model. The main findings of this research revealed that there are three factors that sustain KSBs to be
active as follows: (i) the existence of community’s support; (ii) the presence of shared local values; and
(iii) the subsistence of an internal mechanism. Other components that configure the Interactive Model
such as the foundation, context, and interfering conditions; main phenomenon; actions and
interactions; and outcomes are discussed including their interrelationships. To understand whether
the Interactive Model conforms with the pragmatism philosophy underpinning the research, the
Model was then tested against Dewey’s Process of Inquiry, which induced somewhat similar results as
the Model with Dewey’s Process of Inquiry lacking the result component of the analysis.
This research activates two objectives: (i). bridging the world of theory-making with the more practical
theory application through offering recommendations to related stakeholders, elaborating research’s
impact and relevance, nothing research’s implication and discussing future directions or research’s
extendibility; and (ii) reflecting on the research process through clear statements of the assumptions
and applications of translocalism. Through these objectives, a precise determination is offered about
why the KSBs matter, and how they are supported and enabled through that mattering.
| Date of Award | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Supervisor | Dianne Stephens (Supervisor), Karen Hazell-Raine (Supervisor), Tara Brabazon (Supervisor) & Joyce Janine Maree (Supervisor) |