Ngā Mōwaho: an analysis of Māori responses to the Christchurch earthquakes

Since September 2010, a series of earthquakes have caused widespread social, financial and environmental devastation in Christchurch, New Zealand. Anecdotal evidence suggests that local Māori responded effectively to facilitate community recovery and resilience. However, the form, content and extent of that response has not been adequately recognised or documented. This qualitative research project, conducted in partnership with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, has documented the way in which Māori cultural factors have facilitated disaster risk reduction and management in response to the earthquakes. This paper explores sets of understandings about marginalisation and inclusion within the narratives of 70 Māori community members who contributed to this research. Forms of marginalisation expressed in participants’ narratives include delayed linkages to the formal emergency management infrastructure, difficulties integrating Māori volunteers into the mainstream response as well as enduring barriers to Māori engagement within Civil Defence, illustrated in a lack of Māori representation as well as tikanga Māori within emergency planning. We argue that the knowledge, principles and practices embedded within Māori responses to the Christchurch earthquakes may be contextually relevant for national and regional policy development in the area of disaster risk management, response and recovery.     

The SESS multisite collaborative research initiative: establishing common ground

Multidisciplinary intervention approaches are needed for meeting service needs for families in which substance abuse and mental health disorders may be interfering with child‐rearing. Experiences from the Starting Early Starting Smart (SESS) initiative, a 12‐site national collaborative investigation of integrating behavioural health services in early childhood and primary health care service settings for children aged 0–5 years and their families and caregivers, are described. This 4‐year applied research initiative was co‐funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services and Casey Family Programs, a private operating foundation. SESS, which was developed and implemented in 12 geographically and culturally diverse cities in the USA during 1997–2001, encouraged federal, state, and local public/private partnerships. Opportunities and challenges in using an inclusive, consensus‐based, stakeholder model to maximize study relevance and utility for researchers, practitioners, and fiscal sponsors are discussed, and lessons for multidisciplinary, multisite research collaborations are identified.     

Four Motives for Community Involvement

A conceptual analysis is offered that differentiates four types of motivation for community involvement: egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism. Differentiation is based on identification of a unique ultimate goal for each motive. For egoism, the ultimate goal is to increase one's own welfare; for altruism, it is to increase the welfare of another individual or individuals; for collectivism, to increase the welfare of a group; and for principlism, to uphold one or more moral principles. As sources of community involvement, each of these four forms of motivation has its strengths; each also has its weaknesses. More effective efforts to stimulate community involvement may come from strategies that orchestrate motives so that the strengths of one motive can overcome weaknesses of another. Among the various possibilities, strategies that combine appeals to either altruism or collectivism with appeals to principle may be especially promising.     

Do management tasks differ by field of practice?

The authors examine the question: Do management tasks differ by field of practice? Many social work Master's programs are organized on the principle of specialization by field of practice for both micro- and macro-practice students. Secondary analysis of task data suggests that managers and supervisors with MSW degrees perform the same task regardless of the field of practice. The study suggests a need to examine assumptions of current MSW curriculum organization.     

A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts

Luce and Fishburn (1991) derived a general rank-dependent utility model using an operation ⊕ of joint receipt. Their argument rested on an empirically supported property (now) calledsegregation and on the assumption that utility is additive over ⊕. This note generalizes that conclusion to the case where utility need not be additive over ⊕, but rather is of a more general form, which they derived but did not use in their article. Tversky and Kahneman (1992), conjecturing that the joint receipt of two sums of money is simply their sum, criticized that original model because ⊕=+ together with additive utility implies the unacceptable conclusion that the utility of money is proportional to money. In the present generalized theory, if ⊕=+, utility is a negative exponential function of money rather than proportional. Similar results hold for losses. The case of mixed gains and losses is less well understood.     

On the foundations of mean-variance analyses

Let (, ) and (, ) be mean-standard deviation pairs of two probability distributions on the real line. Mean-variance analyses presume that the preferred distribution depends solely on these pairs, with primary preference given to larger mean and smaller variance. This presumption, in conjunction with the assumption that one distribution is better than a second distribution if the mass of the first is completely to the right of the mass of the second, implies that (, ) is preferred to (, ) if and only if either > or ( = and < ), provided that the set of distributions is sufficiently rich. The latter provision fails if the outcomes of all distributions lie in a finite interval, but then it is still possible to arrive at more liberal dominance conclusions between (, ) and (, ).This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research.