A Reparative Paradigm for Thinking With Disasters

ABSTRACT The field of disaster studies remains largely committed to a modernist spatio‐temporal imaginary that persistently emphasises the singularity of a given disaster and often fails to account for the broader set of affairs in which disasters are situated and shaped, in turn leading to circumspect, uninventive and ineffective policy outcomes. In light of these trends, we argue for a paradigm shift in disaster research. In this commentary, we aim to advance studies on the governance and management of disasters by bringing these ongoing perspectives into conversation with recent debates on reparations and reparative thought. A reparative approach to disaster research contains at least three key elements. First, reparative disaster research encourages an explicit focus on relationality that pushes us to consider the intersecting spatial–historical processes and interconnected relationships comprising complex disasters. This relational approach expands our understanding of the dynamics that shape conditions of, and responses to, vulnerability and can engender a more transformative approach that animates and activates the forms of resistance. Second, a reparative approach acknowledges the capacity for disasters to destabilise established forms of disaster planning and infrastructure, thereby creating openings for more just and equitable forms of life in transformed contexts. This approach rejects ‘paranoid’ accounts suggesting that previous disaster outcomes will be automatically reproduced. Instead, it accommodates the possibility of alternative futures that might arise from disruptions in the present. Third, this approach has implications for how we approach disasters methodologically. Specifically, it urges us to reappraise the processes by which we undertake research in terms of fostering consistent and meaningfully collaborative relationships with communities in areas impacted by disasters.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Geographical Journal
Published
2025-11-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.70057
Primary Topic
Disaster Management and Resilience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Reparative Paradigm for Thinking With Disasters

Ksenia Chmutina, Nathaniel O’Grady, Christine Eriksen, Deniz Ay et al.
Geographical Journal
Disaster Management and Resilience
article

A Reparative Paradigm for Thinking With Disasters

Ksenia Chmutina, Nathaniel O’Grady, Christine Eriksen, Deniz Ay, Tim Prior, Rony Emmenegger, Emmanuel Raju, Samuel Lüthi, Kathleen Uyttewaal, Gregory L. Simon, Kevin Grove, Filippo Zeffiri
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT The field of disaster studies remains largely committed to a modernist spatio‐temporal imaginary that persistently emphasises the singularity of a given disaster and often fails to account for the broader set of affairs in which disasters are situated and shaped, in turn leading to circumspect, uninventive and ineffective policy outcomes. In light of these trends, we argue for a paradigm shift in disaster research. In this commentary, we aim to advance studies on the governance and management of disasters by bringing these ongoing perspectives into conversation with recent debates on reparations and reparative thought. A reparative approach to disaster research contains at least three key elements. First, reparative disaster research encourages an explicit focus on relationality that pushes us to consider the intersecting spatial–historical processes and interconnected relationships comprising complex disasters. This relational approach expands our understanding of the dynamics that shape conditions of, and responses to, vulnerability and can engender a more transformative approach that animates and activates the forms of resistance. Second, a reparative approach acknowledges the capacity for disasters to destabilise established forms of disaster planning and infrastructure, thereby creating openings for more just and equitable forms of life in transformed contexts. This approach rejects ‘paranoid’ accounts suggesting that previous disaster outcomes will be automatically reproduced. Instead, it accommodates the possibility of alternative futures that might arise from disruptions in the present. Third, this approach has implications for how we approach disasters methodologically. Specifically, it urges us to reappraise the processes by which we undertake research in terms of fostering consistent and meaningfully collaborative relationships with communities in areas impacted by disasters.

Geographical Journal
University of Bern (CH), University of Copenhagen (DK), Loughborough University (GB), University of Fribourg (CH), Florida International University (US), North-West University (ZA), Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports (CH), University of Manchester (GB), ETH Zurich (CH), University College Copenhagen (DK), Institute for Biomedical Engineering (CH), Humanitarian Institute (RU), Wageningen University & Research (NL), University of Colorado Denver (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Disaster Management and Resilience
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.