do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.
Organizational Culture and Social Capital in disaster response and recovery: A case study of 2015 Nepal Earthquake
Collaboration and network within the organization are crucial in the disaster situation for either natural or human-made disaster. (Waugh and Streib, 2006). But, organizational culture plays a significant role in how the organizational network works and collaborates with each other. Although the organizational culture differs from one another, there is a need to transform the old hierarchal culture that follows the standard procedure to the new one. The transformation will allow the organization to collaborate with each other in a disaster situation and will further help to be more efficient in disaster response and recovery activities (Waugh and Streib, 2006). Hence, the Public administration should play an important part regarding disaster management. But, public administration has neglected to consider disaster management within its activities. (Petak, 1985). Petak (1985) argues that there will be a significant reduction in human suffering and economic loss if the public administration considers disaster management as a central activity in all federal, local and intergovernmental activity. According to Comfort et al., (2012), the importance was only considered in 1984 when the Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA) and the National Association of School of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) collaborated to help those scholars who are focused to do research or professional practice in emergency management. Further, he argues that only after the 1980s the emergency management research made a great impact in the field of public administration (Comfort et al., 2012). Similarly, Cigler (2009) argues that the responsibility to consider disaster management as a central issue in public administration gain importance only after the continuous disaster incident that affected the massive loss of life and property. Despite the consideration of disaster management in public administration, there was a lack of attention given to the recovery after the disaster in its administration policies and practice (Comfort et al., 2010). Medina (2016) argues that disaster management is only possible through the joint effort of state, city, regional, national, multi-agencies and international organization. Also, coordination, collaboration and effective communication within these agencies are also the requirements for the disaster management (Medina, 2016). Similarly, Granot (1997) also agree that the cooperative efforts should make as a requirement for all the organizations that are involved in disaster recovery. Further, Waugh and Streib (2006) suggests that “disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery are the end products of complex political and administrative interaction and the result cannot be easily controlled or anticipated. Hence, a public official should understand to analyze in the best way to approach this task and understand the complexities of policy network in the area in which they work and to think strategically about how to use or alter them” (p. 137-138). Further, Kapucu, Arslan and Demiroz (2010) argue that the organizations either public, private or non-profit organizations that evolve during the disaster response should have the ability to coordinate and share the information within the same level of the organization and also within the top-down level of the organization. Moreover, they assert that communication and coordination among the organization need to be considered as a requirement for any organization that involves in the recovery efforts. (Kapucu, Arslan and Demiroz, 2010). Hence, they suggest that these requirements should be imposed on bureaucratic systems as this system mostly follows the rules, regulation and protocol that might impact the effectiveness of the work in the disaster situation (Kapucu, Arslan and Demiroz, 2010). Similarly, Ansell and Gash (2008) also argue about the effectiveness of policy making and public management when the collaborative network in governance is incorporated. Another research by Eikenberry, Arroyave and Cooper (2007) also assert the importance to implement the efficient coordinating structure in those organizations that involve in the recovery of disaster. They also emphasized that there should be standard procedures for all the federal, state, local and non-profit organization when dealing with disaster recovery and response
Similarly, Garnett and Kouzmin (2007) argue that effective disaster management depends on the organizational social capital and it is vital to have the right organization within its social network. Moreover, he asserts that organizational culture affects the organizational social capital, as organizations are marked by its own has values, beliefs, symbols and language that set them off with other organizations (Garnett and Kouzmin, 2007). Further, Granot (1997) argue that although the organization that works during disaster response follow the same legal mandate and also share certain similar characteristics. But, the cultural difference between these organization impacts ineffectiveness of response and recovery works. Also, Granot (1997) asserts that inter-organizational cooperation is required by the organization to meet the demands for response and recovery works. But, because of their organizational culture, they tend to follow their standards, and this will make the co-operation difficult. Hence, my research will focus on how the culture of the organization will hinder the collaboration work. Further, the study will also conduct social network analysis to see how does the organization coordinate with each other during disaster response and recovery process.
The study will address these three-research questions:
- How does the organizational culture of an organization enable or hinder the effective disaster response and recovery process?
- How does social capital enables or hinders the disaster response and recovery process?
- Does the organization culture impact the organizational social capital?
Cooke and Rousseau (1988) define culture as “the ways of thinking, behaving, and believing that members of a social unit have in common”(p.248). According to Shafritz, Ott and Jang (2014), organizational culture is the culture that is similar to the social culture. Organizational culture is the composition of values, belief and norms that exists in imperceptible forms in an organization Further, they argue that organizations have different cultures and the cultures depend on various factors. These factors can be social, technology, competition, and profession of the employees and domination of previous leaders. They assert that these factors shape the organizational culture (Shafritz, Ott and Jang, 2015). Similarly, Schein (2004) defines culture as “ a pattern of shared basic assumption that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in the relation to those problems”(p.17). In addition, Keyton (2011) defines organizational culture as “ the sets of artifacts, values, and assumptions that emerge from the interactions of organizational members”(p. 28). Further, Martin (2002) argues that the culture is defined in one way and it operates in another way. Martin identified different forms of culture that the researcher used when they study about culture. They are rituals, organizational stories, jargon, humor, and physical arrangements that include architecture, interior décor and dress code. Furthermore, formal and informal practices and content themes can also be the indicators of the culture of the organization (Martin, 2002).
Characteristic of organization culture: Keyton (2011) identified five important characteristic of organizational culture. They are:
a) Inextricably linked to organizational members: Organization culture cannot withstand alone without the founder of that culture. The members who get engage in the organization tend to develop certain culture and the new members adopts it (Keyton, 2011). Hence, organizational culture is a mixture of accepted practice and is dependent on the past and present of the organizational members (Keyton, 2011).
b) Dynamic not static: Organization culture can change as new people come and others go out of the organization. Similarly, organization culture can also change as their members change their belief systems or modify norms (Keyton, 2011). In addition organization culture can also change when addressing to the internal problems and opportunities and responding to the external environment (Keyton, 2011).
c) Competing values and assumption: According to Keyton (2011), organizations have the ability to structure themselves in to networks based on tasks, relationship and information. Hence this provides opportunity to organizational members to create many belief system, subcultures with both overlapping and distinguishing elements (Keyton, 2011).
d) Emotionally charged: Along with other values and beliefs, emotions are also experienced in the work environment (Keyton, 2011). Both, positive and negative emotions are prevalent in the work environment. The emotions are more controlled in emotional labor jobs where the members express genuine emotions in order to meet the expectation. Hence, the organization culture is directly influenced by the emotions as the member expresses or controls their emotions (Keyton, 2011).
e) Foreground and Background: According to Keyton (2011), foreground is the current interaction and the background is the existing culture. Organization creates new background and future interactions are interpreted, when the organization member creates, enhance or contradicts the organizational culture (Keyton, 2011). Hence this cycle is continuous and the organizational culture represents the social order of an organization (Keyton, 2011).
Levels of culture:
Organization culture is distinguished in to three fundamental levels. They are artifacts, values and basic underlying assumptions (Schien, 1990). These elements guide the employees to understand the organization meaning (Keyton, 2011).
a) Artifacts: Artifacts are first thing which we notice when entering an organization, as they are easily noticeable (keyton, 2011). According to Schien (1990), “artifacts include everything from the physical layout, the dress code, the manner in which people address each other, the smell and the feel of the place and other phenomenon, permanent archival manifestation such as company record, products, statements of philosophy, and annual reports“(p.111). Although artifacts are palpable they are had to decipher accurately (Schien, 1990). Schultz, (1995) also agrees that artifacts “create a multiple and confusing surface, which leaves an immediate impression of the culture and typically appeals to prejudices and stereotypes”(p.27). Hence, the valid interpretation cannot be predicted from artifacts alone. Although, the artifacts are easy to observe, it is difficult to interpret as it might differ according to a particular group of employees (Keyton, 2011).
b) Values: According to keystone (2011) values are “ strategies, goals, principles, or qualities that are considered worthwhile, or desirable and, as a result, create guidelines for organizational behavior”(p.23). Values can be transformed if the managers can convince their group. But, all the values cannot be transformed. The values that can be transformed are the ones, which can be tested empirically and can solve the group problems (Schien, 2004). Despite the importance of values it leaves large area of behavior unexplained and it becomes necessary to understand the basic underlying assumption in order to understand the culture (Schien 2004).
c) Basic underlying assumption: Basic underlying assumption is the beliefs that the members entrenched deeply within them. The members can have assumption about the organization, their customers and also about their work. According to Schien (1990), the assumption unconsciously guides the way in which the employee think, feel and behave. Further, the basic assumption is important to understand, as it will help to interpret the artifacts and the values of the organization (Schien, 2004). Hence, the essence of culture of any organization depends on the basic underlying assumption. This need to be understood first, in order understand the artifacts and values. This will help the groups or individual to find meaning and stability (Schien, 2004).
Organizational culture and disaster response and recovery:
Organization is considered as a decision maker rather than interpretation system. Hence, organization culture is important to understand, as it raises attention to the issue of meaning and deciding (Weick, 1987). Weick (1987) argue that “organization culture plays a role and creates a homogenous set of assumption and decision premises which, when they are invoked on a local and decentralized basis, preserves coordination and centralization. Hence, neither rule nor standardization is well equipped to deal with emergencies for which there is no precedent” (p. 124). Further, Harrald (2006) proposed three types of organization that respond to the extreme events. They are Dysfunctional, Ad hoc/reactive, Balanced/Adaptive and Bureaucratic/procedural. Moreover, he argues that the organization should move to balanced and adaptive to respond more effectively towards the emergency response (Harrald, 2006). He asserts that the failure to respond to hurricane Katrina is due to the organization following their bureaucratic procedure and not making efforts to be more flexible and working in a collaborative manner to respond quickly to the disaster victims (Harrald, 2006). Similarly, Dynes (2000) also demonstrated two types of model for disaster management system and also suggest moving from closed system to open system. According to Dynes (2000) the closed system follows procedures and standards, whereas open system supports the need for collaboration and coordination within the organization. In addition, Walker (1993) also agrees that the organization should follow the open system. He argues that there are numerous occasions where the closed system has been ineffective in disaster management and other emergency situation such as Chernobyl, hurricane Hugo and hurricane Andrew. Similarly, Comfort et al., (2007) also argues that the cognition should also be considered as crucial terms in addition to coordination, communication and control that are considered vital in disaster response. They assert that cognition is the most important for disaster response as it enables the managers to get more awareness to difference between planning and practice (Comfort et al., 2007). Furthermore, they argue that although the decision makers have considered cognition important, it has not been implemented in the framework of National emergency response (Comfort et al., 2007). Moreover, they argue that organization responsible for the disaster management needs to adapt different approach than the hierarchical approach as this approach operates in a stable condition and this type of approach will not be effective in disaster response and recovery (Comfort et al., 2007). Likewise, the study done by Comfort (2005) on the response to Hurricane Katrina also pointed out the flaws in the policies designed for emergency response. He also argues that the organization involved in emergency management should shift from its hierarchical and centralized system towards the decentralized system (Comfort, 2005). Furthermore, he proposed a model that consists of five critical criteria that should be included in the broad culture of the emergency response organization. In addition, Harrald (2006) also suggest that the failure to respond during Hurricane Katrina is because the emergency response organization was more focused on increasing the discipline and following the doctrine, process and structure. He argues that they would have been successful if they had focused on creativity, adaptability and improvisation (Harrald, 2006).
Social capital or social network is simply the network that binds the people together through their connection with other (Aldrich, 2012). Social capital is not only crucial for governance, economic growth and development, but also for disaster recovery and response (Aldrich, 2012). The social capital theory emerged in the early nineteenth century when the scholars were more focused towards how the groups, networks and norms interact with political and economical outcomes (Aldrich, 2012). Many scholars defined the term social capital and among them the work of three scholars are mostly recognized -Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam (Baron, Field and Schuller, 2000). Halstead and Deller (2015) argue that Bourdieu work is credited as he expanded the Karl Marx theory of capital by focusing on cultural and social aspects of capital. According to Bourdieu social capital “ is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and reorganization-or in other words, to membership in a group-which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively-owned capital, a “credential” which entitles them to credit, in the various sense of word” (p. 247) (Bourdieu, 1986) (Halstead and Deller, 2015 chapter 2, p.17). Similarly, Coleman (1998) argue, “ social capital is defined by its functions. It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities having two elements in common. They all consist of some aspects of social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of actors within the structure” (P.S98) (Coleman, 1998). He further argues that social capital is critical to achieve goals and is productive as well like other forms of capital. Similarly, Putnam defines social capital as “ the collective value of all social networks and the inclination that arise from these networks to do things for each other” (p. 19) (Putnam, 2000) (Halstead and Deller (2015), chapter 2, p.18). Moreover, organizational social capital is defined “as a resource reflecting the character of social relationships within the firm” (p.538) (Leana and Buren, 1999). Furthermore, they argue that the social capital in the organization will help to generate certain values that will facilitate the collaborative operations. (Lean and Buren, 1999). Organizational social capital is formed within the organization through the interaction of different group of work forces such as department or teams etc. Hence, the interconnection between the members within these groups effects the formation of social capital in an organization (Arregle et al., 2007). Similarly, social capital in the organization enables to gather knowledge, helps in information flow and allows creativity (Arregle et al., 2007). In addition, Nahapiet and Ghosal (1998) argue that the main concept of the social capital is that it provides an extremely useful resources and this help the members to have their own capital when they are in that network. Moreover, social capital is beneficial on dealing with all economic, development and social factors (Chamlee-Wright and Storr, 2011). They further assert that social capital is also beneficial in all aspects (preparedness, response or recovery) of disaster management (Chamlee-Wright and Storr, 2011). Likewise, Torsvik (2000) also suggests that social capital enables the formation of trust and support in the society. Furthermore, Fukuyama (2001) posits that social capital has been gaining attention in public administration as it proved to be important in both economic and political realm. Social capital is proved to be beneficial in economic realm as it reduce transactional cost. Likewise, in political realm social capital facilitates the interconnection, which is a necessary for any governmental institution to perform effectively.
Furthermore, Gregory (1999) argues social capital should also be taken in to consideration in the public sector, as it will play important role in building ethical integrity in public service Similarly, Wichowsky and Moynihan (2008) posits that social capital can have positive influence in public polices and should be considered in performance management
Erridge and Greer (2002) also agrees that social capital will impact on both public sector and public procurement as it will support the linkage and improves social unity.
Similarly, Wallis and Dollery (2002) draws the importance of social capital to develop the capacity of local authorities for governance.
He adds that opening their political opportunity structure and engaging voluntary organizations and community groups in trust-based partnership arrangement can develop the capacity. The study of Brewer (2003) emphasize on the civic attitudes and behavior, which is related to the social capital of public servants. His study examines the difference between public servants and other citizens and found that the public servants are more altruistic and civic minded (Brewer, 2003). Among several types of social capital identified, bridging and linking social capital are particularly important for loosely organized publics for they enable people to make the connection with each other and with external actors (Pautz and Schnitzer, 2008). Bridging and linking social capital are important in characterizing how publics form around policy issues, as well how they may access the policy process. Further, bridging and linking social capital provide more fertile ground for the development of next-generation policy (Pautz and Schnitzer, 2008).
Social Capital and disaster response and recovery:
Dynes (2005) argue that social capital serves as a primary base for a community response during the emergency period. He adds that social capital is the only form of capital, which is renewed and enhanced during the emergency period (Dynes 2005). Furthermore, Dynes (2005) argue that social capital has the advantage of seeing social systems as active resources, not passive victims. Further, it also has the advantage of shifting the focus away from human vulnerability toward an emphasis on human capability (Dynes, 2005). There are a number of possibilities where social capital theory might be helpful in disaster recovery. “Firstly, it would be useful to examine the literature on emergence, scattered through the disaster literature, to examine the outcome. Second, the social capital theory might be useful in an analysis of the problems of external aid in disaster since such aid disrupts existing obligations, distorts informational potential, and imposes new authority patterns. Third, the social capital theory is useful since it links microanalysis with macro-analysis”(p.43) (Dynes, 2005). Similarly, Aldrich (2011) argues that social capital is the most robust predictor of population recovery after catastrophe. Further he asserts that social capital has important implication both for policies focused on reconstruction and for social science more generally (Aldrich, 2011). There is less empirical evidence investing the role of economic capital, damage levels, and social capital in facilitating or impeding rebuilding (Aldrich, 2011). He used the case studies of the earthquake disaster in Kobe Japan 1995 and found that number of factors which include economic status, level of welfare dependence, damage, socio-economic inequality and geographic condition, the amount of social capital most strongly determines recovery rates (Aldrich, 2011). His research adds to the growing recognition of the need to take social capital into account both in social science research and public policies (Aldrich, 2011). Furthermore, he argues that social capital proves important in crisis recovery; decision makers should shift resources to strengthen social networks in potentially vulnerable localities and after the disaster (Aldrich, 2011). He adds that the social capital among residents of disaster struck communities is a critical component of the post- disaster recovery process (Aldrich, 2011). Further, knack and keeper (1997) also suggest that trust, cooperative norms, and associations within the group can be applied as a definition of the term social capital. Most studies found that social capital benefits in disaster preparedness, response and recovery. The study of Bolin and Stanford (1998) showed how community-based organization aided in recovery process during the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake. They also found that the CBOs worked to address the unmet needs of those in the most vulnerable communities. This shows how the social capital between the CBOs and government agencies benefited the vulnerable communities. Kiefer and Montjoy (2006) also attributed the importance of disaster management network by giving the example of hurricane Katrina and successful evacuation of resident in advance before the major disaster. In addition, Murphy (2007) argues that social capital also provides some insights in the context of emergency management. He argues that the communities with high stock of social capital are expected to be safer, wealthier, more literate, better governed and happier than people with low stock of social capital. He also found that traditional communities have stronger social capital relationship due to the increased and sustained interaction among community members (Murphy, 2007). Furthermore he asserts that the people with strong network and relationship fare better within all phases of hazard cycle from planning to reconstruction (Murphy, 2007). Another study of Nakagawa and Shaw (2004) also argue that the community with social capital and with a tradition of community activities can pro-actively participate in reconstruction program and can make successful and speedy recovery. In addition, the study of Chamlee-Wright and Storr (2009) also highlights the importance of social capital in the recovery process of hurricane Katrina. Their analysis also showed the important role that can be played by socially embedded resources in the long- term recovery of the entire community. Furthermore, the study of Hurlbert et al. (2000) also showed that the individuals which are more embedded in higher density core networks or have the network with more gender diversity gain a greater degree of informal support in the case of disaster recovery than the individual who lacks core networks. Similarly, the study of Mathbor (2007) focuses on the utilization of human and social capital in mitigating the consequence of the natural disaster. He developed a model that emphasizes three steps to build social capital, which will be effective for service delivery before, during and after the disaster. The three steps are a) Bonding within communities, b) bridging between and among communities, and c) linking communities through ties with financial and public institution (Mathbor, 2007). Despite the positive relation between social capital and disaster recovery, there are some drawbacks as well. The study of Aldrich (2011) conducted in India following the Indian tsunami demonstrated that high level of social capital provided benefits as well as have strong negative externalities, especially to those who are in the periphery of the society. The study also showed that the recovery process and aid distribution did not faced any barriers for the group that have high level of bonding and linking social capital. While the group such as women, Dalit, migrant and Muslim who lacked bonding and linking social capital felt the obstacles for recovery (Aldrich, 2011). Similarly, another study of social capital in hurricane Katrina by Elliot et al. (2010) also indicated that inequalities in social capital increase over the course of disaster. This leaves the less advantage people ineffective and stressed over time. They also suggest that decline in social capital occur because less- advantage people are unable to tap translocation tie in times of mass displacement. Another study of social capital during the hurricane Katrina also highlighted that the individual and community development following the catastrophic event can be both strengthen or hindered by social capital (Hawkins and Maurer, 2010). Furthermore, the study of Yandong (2007) also argue that social capital has its benefit in both micro and macro level and help the disaster victims to recover from disaster. He further argue that social capital have different impact on different social group. He also suggests that as vulnerable people can have a negative impact on their recovery as they are more linked to their own social network. Similarly, another study of Minamoto (2010) focused on the people’s perception of livelihood recovery and social capital in the case study of post-tsunami in Sri Lanka. His study showed that bonds with relative and neighbor were not always positive. These studies of social capital have focused the attention of the importance of social capital in disaster preparedness response and recovery.
Social Network analysis:
According to Dekker (2002), social network analysis is an approach to analyzing the relationship between people and /or groups. Similarly, Scott (1998) asserts that the social network provides a powerful model of the social structure. Otte and Rousseau (2002), assert that social network analysis is referred to as structural analysis. They also suggest that social network is not a formal theory but rather a strategy for investigating social structures. Moreover, the history of social network analysis reaches back to 1930s and the field of sociometry (Wetherell, 1998). The social network analysis was then applied in sociology, social psychology and anthropology in the late 1970s and 1980s to develop analytical concepts and measures to exploit the new form of data collected about the economic, political and social structure of the modern world (Wetherell, 1998). Further, International Network for social analysis (INSNA) that was established in 1976 serves as a forum for network analysts in the social and medical science (Wetherell, 1998). Similarly, Tichy et al., 1979 also agrees that the concept of the social network is not new and can be traced back to the three broad school of thought: sociology, anthropology and role theory. In addition, Serrat (2009) argues that social network analysis assumes that relations are important and it focuses on the structure of relationships, ranging from casual acquaintance to close bonds. Moreover, he asserts that the social network analysis is important for organizational performance as it maps and measures both formal and informal relationships to understand what facilitates or hinder the knowledge flows that bind interacting units such as who knows whom, who shares what information etc. (Serrat, 2009). Moreover, social network analysis helps to identify the individuals, teams and units who plays the central role and is also play important role in development assistance project as it will help to find who is influencing whom (Serrat, 2009). According to Wetherell (1994), “social network analysis (1) conceptualizes social structure as a network with ties connecting members and channeling resources, (2) focuses on the characteristics of ties rather than on the characteristic of the individual members, and (3) views communities as ‘ personal communities’, that is, as network of individual relation that people foster, maintain, and use in the course of their daily lives”(p.645). Similarly, Wasserman and Faust (1994) argue that social network analysis provides formal, conceptual means for thinking about the social world. They define the social network as a set of nodes that are tied by one or more types of relation. Social networks analysis has several key concepts such as: actor, relation tie, dyad, triad, subgroup, group, relation and network (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). Further, Scott and Carrington (2011) also defines the social network as a set of socially relevant nodes connected by one or more nodes. Moreover, there are different measures for the social network that includes: betweenness, bridge, centrality, closeness, clustering coefficient, cohesion, degree, path length, radiality, prestige, reach, structural cohesion, structural equivalence and structural hole (Scott and Carrington, 2011). Furthermore, Freeman (2004) asserts that in social science, the structural approach that is based on the study of interaction among social actor is called network analysis. Moreover, he argues that social network approach is grounded in the intuitive notion that the patterning of social ties in which actors are embedded has important consequences for those actors. Further, the analysts then seek to uncover the patterns and try to determine the condition under which those patterns arise and discover their consequences (Freeman, 2004). In addition, he posits four features that are found in modern social network analysis. The features are: network analysis is motivated by a structural institution based on ties linking social actors, grounded in systematic empirical data, draws heavily on graphic imagery and relies on the use of mathematical or computation models (Freeman, 2004).
I will employ mixed method approach for the research. According to Creswell (2014), mixed method involves collecting, analyzing and integrating of both qualitative and quantitative data. Mixed method approach is important as it can compare different perspective drawn from quantitative and qualitative data and develops better measurement, which increases the effectiveness of the research (Creswell, 2014). Similarly, Becker (1996) also argues that the use of both methods is important as it raises different questions at the level of data and generalization about the social life. Further, Brower et al. (2000) argue that quantitative method depicts the data and analyses the data that offer proof of replicable conclusion. Whereas qualitative research offers copious, detailed evidence from natural setting and craft it into accounts intended to convince readers that they have reached a reasonable interpretation of participants experience. In addition, quantitative research depicts cause and effect relationships, whereas, qualitative research sees causation in every day, emergent process of inter-subjective human action and meaning construction (Brower et al., 2000). Hence, mixed method approach is important as it will compensate each other and increase the validity of the research.
A. Data Collection
Firstly, the preliminary study will be done and data will be collected regarding the non-government organization that was involved in the disaster response and recovery. This will be done through the web search and other relevant sources. Based on the preliminary study random sampling will be done and the organization will be selected. Following method will be applied for the data collection
1) Participant observation and unstructured interview:
I will take the field notes of the behavior and the activities of the individuals at the research site. I will attend the monthly meetings, seminars that are conducted by the organization. In addition, this will also help me to examine everyday activities of the governmental and non-governmental organization. Further, I will conduct unstructured interviews with the officials to ask the general questions. This will allow the participants to freely provide their views
2) Semi-structured Interview:
I will conduct semi-structured interviews with the NGO official and government officials. This will be a face-to-face interview. The questions will be regarding the organization culture and how it coordinates with other during the emergency period. The questions will be few in number and intended to draw views and opinions from the participants
B. Document Analysis:
I will collect documents from government and non-government offices working on post-disaster recovery. Sites will include offices or library of NGOs, national reconstruction authority, the ministry of foreign affairs and Tribhuvan University. These documents will include newspapers, minutes of the meeting and official reports.
C. Data Analysis:
The interviews conducted will mostly be in the Nepali language. Hence these interviews will be transcribed word for word. Using N-Vivo qualitative data analysis software, I will analyze the entire interview and document content line-by-line to create themes and sub-themes (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Bernard 2011). In particular, I will look for repetition, similarities and difference, action, events and consequences to find patterns. In addition, all public, NGO, and media documents including images and texts will be coded using N-Vivo. Also, quantitative data from the questionnaire will be simultaneously coded by assigning numeric values to produce descriptive statistics. Furthermore, social network analysis software called Gephi will be used for social network analysis.
Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of management studies, 44(1), 73-95.
Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press.
Aldrich, D. P. (2011). The power of people: social capital’s role in recovery from the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Natural hazards, 56(3), 595-611.
Aldrich, D. P. (2011). The externalities of strong social capital: Post-tsunami recovery in Southeast India. Journal of Civil Society, 7(1), 81-99.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.
Becker, H. S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry, 53-71.
Bernard, H. R. (1995). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman Altamira.
Bolin, R., & Stanford, L. (1998). The Northridge Earthquake: Community‐based Approaches to Unmet Recovery Needs. Disasters, 22(1), 21-38.
Brewer, G. A. (2003). Building social capital: Civic attitudes and behavior of public servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 5-26.
Brower, R. S., Abolafia, M. Y., & Carr, J. B. (2000). On improving qualitative methods in public administration research. Administration & Society, 32(4), 363-397.
Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2011). Social capital as collective narratives and post- disaster community recovery. The sociological review, 59(2), 266-282.
Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2009). Club goods and post-disaster community return. Rationality and Society, 21(4), 429-458.
Cigler, B. A. (2009). Mainstreaming emergency management into public administration. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1172-1176.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Comfort, L. K., Birkland, T. A., Cigler, B. A., & Nance, E. (2010). Retrospectives and prospectives on Hurricane Katrina: Five years and counting. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 669-678.
Comfort, L. K., Waugh, W. L., & Cigler, B. A. (2012). Emergency management research and practice in public administration: emergence, evolution, expansion, and future directions. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 539-547.
Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 189-197.
Comfort, L. K. (2005, November). Fragility in disaster response: Hurricane Katrina, 29 August 2005. In The forum (Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 1-8). bepress.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations a quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group & organization management, 13(3), 245-273.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Dekker, A. (2002). Applying social network analysis concepts to military C4ISR architectures. Connections, 24(3), 93-103.
Dynes, R. R. (2000). Governmental systems for disaster management.
Dynes, R. R. (2005). Community social capital as the primary basis for resilience.
Eikenberry, A. M., Arroyave, V., & Cooper, T. (2007). Administrative failure and the international NGO response to Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 160-170.
Elliott, J. R., Haney, T. J., & Sams‐Abiodun, P. (2010). Limits to social capital: Comparing network assistance in two New Orleans neighborhoods devastated by Hurricane Katrina. The Sociological Quarterly, 51(4), 624-648.
Erridge, A., & Greer, J. (2002). Partnerships and public procurement: building social capital through supply relations. PublicAdministration, 80(3), 503-522.
Freeman, L. (2004). The development of social network analysis. A Study in the Sociology of Science.
Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third world quarterly, 22(1), 7-20.
Garnett, J. L., & Kouzmin, A. (2007). Communicating throughout Katrina: Competing and complementary conceptual lenses on crisis communication. Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 171-188.
Granot, H. (1997). Emergency inter-organizational relationships. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 6(5), 305-310.
Gregory, R. J. (1999). Social capital theory and administrative reform: Maintaining ethical probity in public service. Public Administration Review, 63-75.
Harrald, J. R. (2006). Agility and discipline: Critical success factors for disaster response. The annals of the American Academy of political and Social Science, 604(1), 256-272.
Hawkins, R. L., & Maurer, K. (2010). Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. British Journal of Social Work, 40(6), 1777-1793.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). sage.
Hurlbert, J. S., Haines, V. A., & Beggs, J. J. (2000). Core networks and tie activation: What kinds of routine networks allocate resources in nonroutine situations?. American Sociological Review, 598-618.
Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Collaborative emergency management and national emergency management network. Disaster prevention and management: An international journal, 19(4), 452-468.
Keyton, J. (2011). Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work experiences. Sage Publications.
Kiefer, J. J., & Montjoy, R. S. (2006). Incrementalism before the storm: Network performance for the evacuation of New Orleans. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 122-130.
Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross- country investigation. The Quarterly journal of economics, 1251-1288.
Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of management review, 24(3), 538-555.
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Pieces of the puzzle. Organizational Culture:
Mapping the Terrain (pp. 3-7; 55-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mathbor, G. M. (2007). Enhancement of community preparedness for natural disasters the role of social work in building social capital for sustainable disaster relief and management. International Social Work, 50(3), 357-369.
Medina, A. (2016). Promoting a culture of disaster preparedness. Journal of business continuity & emergency planning, 9(3), 281-290.
Minamoto, Y. (2010). Social capital and livelihood recovery: post-tsunami Sri Lanka as a case. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 19(5), 548- 564.
Murphy, B. L. (2007). Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency management. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 297-315.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management.the Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Nakagawa, Y., & Shaw, R. (2004). Social capital: A missing link to disaster recovery. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(1), 5-34.
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of information Science, 28(6), 441-453.
Pautz, M. C., & Schnitzer, M. H. (2008). Policymaking from below: The role of environmental inspectors and publics. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30(4), 450- 475.
Petak, W. (1985). Emergency Management: A Challenge for Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 45, 3-7.
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work : Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture (Vol. 45, No. 2, p. 109). American Psychological Association.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Schultz, M. (1995). On studying organizational cultures: Diagnosis and understanding (Vol. 58). Walter de Gruyter.
Scott, J. (1988). Social network analysis. Sociology, 22(1), 109-127.
Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. SAGE publications.
Serrat, O. (2009). Social network analysis.
Shafritz, J., Ott, J., Jang, Y. (2016). Classics of Organizational Theory. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. ed: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Torsvik, G. (2000). Social Capital and Economic Development a plea for the Mechanisms. Rationality and Society, 12(4), 451-476.
Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of management review, 4(4), 507-519.
Walker, A. H., Ducey Jr, D. L., Lacey, S. J., & Harrald, J. R. (1994). Implementing an effective response management system. In 1995 International Oil spill Conference Technical Report IOSC-001. Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute.
Wallis, J., & Dollery, B. (2002). Social capital and local government capacity. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(3), 76-85.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge university press.
Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California management review, 29(2), 112-127.
Wetherell, C., Plakans, A., & Wellman, B. (1994). Social Networks, Kinship, and Community in Eastern Europe. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 24(4), 639-663.
Wetherell, C. (1998). Historical social network analysis. International Review of Social History, 43(S6), 125-144.
Wichowsky, A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Measuring how administration shapes citizenship: A policy feedback perspective on performance management. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 908-920.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and society, 27(2), 151-208.
Yandong, Z. (2007). Social Capital and Post-disaster Recovery: A sociological study of natural disaster [J]. Sociological Studies, 5, 164-187.
Waugh, W. L., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public administration review, 66(s1), 131-140.disa