Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2014

A Study of Students’ Perceptions of Natural

Disaster Plans and Emergency Preparedness
at a Higher Education Institution
Joshua Coveleski

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@[Link]
 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

A STUDY OF STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF NATURAL DISASTER PLANS AND

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AT A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION

By

JOSHUA COVELESKI

A Dissertation submitted to the

Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Fall Semester, 2014
Joshua Coveleski defended this dissertation on July 21, 2014.
The members of the supervisory committee were:

Robert Schwartz
Professor Directing Dissertation

Alysia Roehrig
University Representative

Thomas Kent Wetherell

Committee Member

Kathy Guthrie
Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my family and thank them for all of their support. I
am so proud to call you all my family and blessed to have you in my life.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Pursuing my Ph.D. from Florida State University was the most challenging yet rewarding
experience of my life to date. I would like to thank my family and friends for all of their support
and encouragement along the way. I am so grateful to have all of you in my life and realize that
none of this would have been possible without your guidance and support.
Mom and Dad, thanks for always believing in me and making me mentally tough to
handle all obstacles life throws at me. Sean, thank you for uprooting your life to live with me in
Tallahassee and make it through graduate school. Mom-mom and Pop-pop, thank you for all the
morale-boosting trips to Naples and phone calls of encouragement. Cristy, Mike and Ryan,
thanks for always reminding me that you were proud of me, and supporting me throughout the
years. Shana, thanks for putting up with all of my frantic phone calls and reminding me to relax
and breathe for five whole minutes. I will never be able to repay you for all of your guidance but
I look forward to trying! Kristen, thank you for pushing me to be a better person and challenging
me every day. Your motivational texts and John Wooden quotes always kept me focused and
aimed in the right direction. You are my best friend and I love you! Sam, thank you for all of
your help and support! I am so grateful to have all of you in my life and look forward to making
future memories!
I would like to thank my Florida State family and committee for providing me with a
home away from home. Dr. Schwartz, thank you for all of the help, understanding and time you
afforded me throughout my graduate education. Without someone like you in my corner, I truly
believe I would not have the honor of graduating from FSU. Dr. Wetherell, you have been an
inspiring role model and have impacted both my personal and professional development since
the first day of class. I am amazed at the way in which you handle all situations, big or small, and
look forward to utilizing the lessons I learned from you throughout my career. Dr. Guthrie,
working for you as an instructor in the leadership program was an amazing experience that I will
always cherish. Your outlook on education and style of teaching shaped my educational
philosophy in so many ways. Dr. Roehrig, thank you for all of your help during the dissertation
process and valuable insight. It was your research class that shaped my understanding of
educational research and was imperative to my development as a graduate student.

iv
 In addition, I would like to thank the faculty and staff in the department of Educational
Leadership and Policy Studies, specifically Jimmy Pastrano for always going above and beyond
to help me with any questions I had throughout my graduate education.
Finally, I would like to thank John Barnhill for mentoring me throughout my time at
Florida State University. I learned so much from you during our monthly lunch meetings and
hope that someday I can influence students the way that you influenced me.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study .............................................................................................. 2

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 4

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 7

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 8

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 9

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 10

Definition of Terms..................................................................................................... 11

Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations.............................................................. 12

Nature of the Study ..................................................................................................... 15

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 18

Emergency Management Background ........................................................................ 18

Natural Disasters at Higher Education Institutions ..................................................... 25

Disaster Management and Preparedness on Higher Education Campuses ................. 27

Leadership in Emergency Conditions ......................................................................... 32

Transformational Leadership on Campus ................................................................... 42

Student Perceptions ..................................................................................................... 44

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 47

Case Study Research ................................................................................................... 48

Sample......................................................................................................................... 48

vi
 Data Collection Procedures......................................................................................... 52

Role of the Researcher ................................................................................................ 58

Data Analysis Procedures ........................................................................................... 61

Reliability Measures ................................................................................................... 64

Credibility Measures ................................................................................................... 65

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 66

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 67

Knowledge from Survey and Interview Questions ..................................................... 67

Major Themes ............................................................................................................. 76

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 85

CHAPTER5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 86

Current State of Higher Education Institutions .......................................................... 86

Higher Education and University A ............................................................................ 87

The Impact of Organizational Behavior on Student Perceptions................................ 91

Implications for Disaster Preparedness ....................................................................... 97

Emergency Management Leadership in Higher Education ...................................... 102

Limitations of Study ................................................................................................. 103

Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................... 104

Summary ................................................................................................................... 106

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 108

A. SURVEY QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 108

B. CONSENT FORM ............................................................................................................. 109

C. COMPLETE CODING SCHEMA ..................................................................................... 111

D. IRB APPROVAL ............................................................................................................... 116

vii
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 118

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................................................................................... 130

viii
 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1:Coding Schema ............................................................................................................ 63

TABLE 2:Survey and Interview Demographics ........................................................................... 68

TABLE 3: Complete Coding Table ............................................................................................ 111

ix
 ABSTRACT

Disaster response and emergency preparedness procedures are predicted through an in-

depth and unique understanding of planning, mitigation, response, and recovery efforts. It is also

contingent on both emergency responders and those impacted by the disaster to comprehend the

specific social and geographical challenges of their local environment. Higher education

institutions must provide students with a safe and nurturing environment to help with academic

and social development. With this increased emphasis on safety, it is imperative that higher

education institutions understand their students’ perceptions of disaster response and emergency

preparedness efforts. This purpose of this study was to utilize transformational leadership theory

as a way to explore students’ perceptions of natural disaster plans and emergency preparedness

efforts at a higher education institution. Qualitative interviews were conducted with students

regarding their knowledge of natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts and through

qualitative analysis, 12 themes emerged. The results from this study suggest a disconnect

between administrators and students with regards to the effective communication of natural

disaster and emergency preparedness information. In conclusion, the unique characteristics of

higher education institutions such as governance and structure create a need for the emphasis of

emergency preparedness procedures such as preplanning, and mitigation efforts by leadership

personnel. Transformational leadership, specifically individual consideration, intellectual

stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence, were examined as a possible

framework for addressing the characteristics of higher education institutions that limit effective

communication of emergency procedures.

x
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Planning for a natural disaster is not a priority or requirement for college freshman

entering a higher education institution (Bishop, 2013). Transitioning from living at home to

college independence can be a traumatic experience for high school graduates. It is the

responsibility of higher education institutions to provide a safe environment for students (Clarke,

2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Hill & Finster, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Watson, Loffredo &

McKee, 2011; Zdziarski, Dunkel & Rollo, 2007). In loco parentis, meaning “in absence of

parents,” has been used to describe the relationship between an institution and its students, but

the term has recently been replaced by a supply-and-demand relationship (Lee, 2011; Morey,

2004). Students and their parents are now considered consumers; as such, they have the power to

dictate the educational marketplace (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).

As a result of this shift in the structure of higher education institutions, a focus on safety

may impact consumers’ decisions when choosing post-secondary institutions. Parents and

students alike anticipate a certain degree of safety and preparedness. Therefore, the

communication between administrators and the student body must be directed toward an

expressed level of disaster management (Beaton, Stergachis, & Thompson, 2007; Bishop, 2013;

Clarke, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Hill & Finster, 2013; Watson et al., 2011).

The need for emergency preparedness regarding natural disasters at higher education

institutions has become apparent over the last decade. In 2006, Hurricane Katrina caused an

estimated two billion dollars’ worth of damage to the 15 higher education institutions in the city

of New Orleans and its surrounding areas (Schachter, 2006). In March 2012, a spate of tornadoes

in Alabama and Georgia caused billions of dollars’ worth of damage to higher learning

1
institutions and killed six students from the University of Alabama (Grayson, 2011). During

responses to these natural disaster, college safety officials and emergency responders found

themselves using poorly executed and inadequate response plans due to a lack of preparedness

within higher education institutions (Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Clarke, 2013; Farazmand, 2007;

IACLEA, 2006; Laska & Morrow, 2006).

Emergency management literature clearly identifies that it is not enough to merely have a

plan in place, but that those impacted by said plan must have an understanding of the

implementation process (Beaton et al., 2007; Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Fillmore et al., 2011;

Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers, James & Moulton, 2010; Smith, 2011; Zdziarski et al., 2007).

Smith (2011) indicated that preplanning and mitigation efforts could serve as a reliable method

to reduce the impact of a natural disaster. Due to the increase in both the frequency and

magnitude of natural disasters in recent years, it is essential to understand student perceptions of

disaster response plans and emergency preparedness efforts at higher education institutions

(Bishop, 2013; Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Clarke, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; González, Castillo &

González, 2013; Grundy, 2013; Hill & Finster, 2013). This study reviewed students’ perceptions

of their university’s natural disaster response plans and emergency preparedness efforts.

Understanding students’ perceptions can not only serve to validate current practices, but could

also help to update emergency response and disaster management systems at higher education

institutions, and has the capacity to save students’ lives during natural disasters.

Background of the Study

Academic institutions now compete for limited students and resources (Christensen &

Eyring, 2011; Dimas, Goula, & Pierrakos, 2011; Duderstadt, 2000). Virtual and for-profit

institutions have flooded the higher education market, creating an excess of academic providers

2
(Morey, 2004). Unlike traditional universities, these for-profit institutions maintain the flexibility

and fluidity to change in accordance with consumers’ demands (Langen, 2011; Oseguera &

Malagon, 2011; Ross-Gordon, 2011). In order for students to take on the debt that accompanies a

post-secondary education, each student must feel that they will be afforded a safe learning

environment (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Thus, higher education institutions must provide an

increased level of safety within the organization. This is accomplished through adequate pre-

planning and disaster mitigation (Beaton et al., 2007; Clarke, 2013; Grundy, 2013; Kapucu &

Khosa, 2013; Sadiq & Weible, 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007). However, administrators and safety

personnel must be able to communicate these disaster response plans to their student body in

order to be effective in their safety efforts (Clarke, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; González et al.,

2013; Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007).

The risk of natural disasters continues to rise in the twenty-first century (Fillmore et al.,

2011; Rolle & Zdziarski, 2007). Highlighted by Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, and the

tornados at the University of Alabama, campus safety during natural disasters continues to be a

poorly addressed problem among higher education institutions. Herman (1963) described a

disaster as an immediate, surprise event that involves both danger and opportunity and provides a

limited amount of time for administrative response. A disaster interrupts the normal operations of

an organization and threatens the wellbeing of students (Fillmore et al., 2011; Rolle & Zdziarski,

2007). Natural disasters disrupt the “physical characteristics and special patterns of development,

economic interdependencies, social bonds and sense of place” within a community (Smith, 2011,

p. 3). Therefore, natural disasters include any disaster that begins with the environment or nature

(Rolle & Zdziarski, 2007). Students’ perceptions of preparedness and the response of higher

learning institutions to natural disasters were the primary focus of this study.

3
 How a university prepares and responds to these disasters regardless of their origin can

influence a university’s reputation among consumers (Rolle & Zdziarski, 2007). Understanding

emergency response efforts can be confusing due to the magnitude of steps and various agencies

involved in decision-making processes (Beaton, et al., 2007; Fillmore et al., 2011; Watson,

Loffredo & McKee, 2011). Currently, emergency response efforts are inadequate and need

improvement at both community colleges and four-year higher education institutions (Beaton et

al., 2007; Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Rolle &

Zdziarski, 2007; Smith, 2011; Zdziarski et al., 2007).

In a study by Kapucu and Khosa (2013), only 35 % of colleges and universities queried

had mitigation plans that met federal guidelines. With the increased instances of disasters that

characterize the twenty-first century, every higher education institution needs to make disaster

response plans an institutional priority (Bishop, 2013; Chikoto, Sadiq & Fordyce, 2013; Kapucu

& Khosa, 2013). The perceptions of students regarding emergency preparedness efforts and the

preparedness of their college’s response to natural disasters have been examined through this

study. To that end, it is my hope that the findings of this study will be valuable for higher

education administrators in terms of the analysis and improvement of current emergency

management procedures.

Statement of the Problem

The changing demographic and increased diversity of college students has brought about

its own set of challenges for higher education institutions (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). As

indicated by Weick (1976) in Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), higher education governance is often

characterized as a loose coupling without a clear organizational flow. The independence that

allows the academy to ensure creativity, scholarship and research also affects the responsiveness

4
of higher education institutions faced with campus disasters (Bishop, 2013; Burrell & Heiselt,

2012; Clarke, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Myers et al., 2010; Spokane, Inman, Weatherford,

Davidson & Straw, 2011). To work around these governance characteristics, which often

undercut emergency response plans and natural disaster preparedness, higher education

institutions need to develop clear, dynamic, and preemptive procedures for dealing with natural

disasters (Bishop, 2013; Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Clarke, 2013; Jenkins, 2008; Kapucu & Khosa,

2013; Watson et al., 2011).

Higher education institutions typically provide a top-down leadership approach to

disseminate appropriate information and emergency procedures (Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Clarke,

2013). However, this top-down approach to communication from higher education leadership is

in direct contrast to the bottom-up approach to emergency and disaster management with regard

to natural disasters on college campuses (Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Coombs, 2007; Lawson, 2007;

Mullins et al., 2012; Waugh & Streib, 2006). Consequently, there is a gap in communication

with students regarding the importance of disaster preparedness and emergency response.

Recent natural disasters have placed an increased emphasis on “disaster and emergency

management procedures” at higher education institutions (Jenkins, 2008, p. 89). In a study of

community colleges, Jenkins (2008) found that higher education institutions’ emergency

response plans are missing appropriate communication, training, and simulation drills. Higher

education safety administrators and personnel need to understand students’ perceptions with

regards to disaster response efforts and emergency preparedness in order to continuously

evaluate the quality of current procedures (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013; Watson et al., 2011). It is

not enough to merely have a plan in place (Smith, 2011). These plans must be continuously

evaluated, challenged, adapted and communicated to students, staff, administrators and various

5
constituents (Farazmand, 2007; Grundy, 2013; Mullins et al., 2012; Myers et al., 2010; Smith,

2011; Spokane et al., 2011).

As stated by DeWit (2007), higher education institutions are unique organizations with

varying characteristics. Kiernan (2005) pointed out that while higher education institutions have

placed an increased importance on disaster preparedness, their plans are still inadequate. Clearly

articulating and communicating emergency response plans and disaster preparedness is a critical

step in the disaster communication process (Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Coombs, 2007; Fillmore et

al., 2011; Lawson, 2007; Mullins, Schultz, Knupp, & Klockow, 2012; Waugh & Streib, 2006).

Research indicated that before 2001, many higher education institutions were not properly

prepared for disasters and lacked emergency response planning (Mitroff, 2001). However,

research since 2001 still suggests a need for improving emergency planning efforts at higher

education institutions, highlighting the need for administrators to emphasize emergency

management planning (Clarke, 2013; Jenkins, 2008; Myers et al., 2010). By studying their

students’ understanding of natural disaster preparedness and emergency response plans,

administrators may gain deeper insight into ways to improve the planning process (Beaton et al.,

2007; Fillmore et al., 2011; González et al., 2013; Spokane et al., 2011; Watson et al., 2011).

Research suggested that campus disasters could be grouped into three categories:

environmental (natural), human, and facility (Myers et al., 2010; Rolle & Zdziarski, 2007). The

scope of this research utilized a case study format to investigate only issues that fall under the

environmental (natural) category of campus disasters, including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,

wildfires, extreme temperatures, landslides, lightning strikes, severe winds, earthquakes and

extreme temperatures (Myers et al., 2010; Rolle & Zdziarski, 2007). While the other categories

of disasters are important, additional research not included in this study could better address

6
manmade and facility disasters. I have chosen to limit my scope specifically to natural disaster

preparedness and knowledge of emergency response efforts. It is my hope that understanding one

specific aspect within a larger emergency preparedness framework may be helpful in

understanding students’ perceptions and further identifying the best way to prepare for natural

disasters within higher education institutions.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to understand students’ perceptions regarding emergency

preparedness and natural disaster response plans at their higher education institution through a

qualitative method. Emergency response plans involve a great deal of flexibility and continuous

communication between local, state and federal governments (Clarke, 2013; Fillmore et al.,

2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011). A bottom-up approach is utilized in disaster

preplanning because of the unique characteristics of each community (Sadiq & Weible, 2010;

Smith, 2011). Safety personnel and administrators in higher education institutions should be

aware that emergency management has a social as well as a geographical component that

impacts the ability to respond to natural disasters. Recent natural disasters on college campuses

have been characterized by a lack of communication and organization (Beaton et al., 2007;

Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Chikoto et al., 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013;

Watson et al., 2011). Thus, higher education institutions need to understand how to disseminate

emergency protocols and procedures to the student body, faculty, and overall community in

order to be more effective in pre-planning (Grundy, 2013; Mullins et al., 2012; Spokane et al.,

2011).

For this study, a natural disaster was defined as a sudden and often unexpected natural

event that interrupts the “normal operation of institutions or its educational mission and threatens

7
the well being of personal property and financial resources” (Myers et al., 2010, p. 17). The

capacity for disruption presented by each disaster, with regards to the behavioral, cognitive and

academic aspect of the university population, indicates the importance of providing appropriate

natural disaster response plans and emergency preparedness efforts (Chikoto, et al., 2013;

Fillmore, 2011; Myers et al., 2010). However, emergency response plans are only effective if

they are publicly circulated and understood by all those within the organizational setting (Bishop,

2013; Grundy, 2013; Smith, 2011). Therefore, this study highlights the need for higher education

institution safety personnel and administrators to understand the perceptions of students

regarding natural disaster response plans and emergency preparedness.

Conceptual Framework

To date, limited research has been conducted on the perceptions of college students

regarding natural disaster preparedness within higher learning institutions (Sadiq & Weible,

2010; Schachter, 2006). Due to the increase in both the frequency and magnitude of natural

disasters in recent years, it is essential to understand students’ perceptions of emergency

response plans and natural disaster preparedness at higher education institutions in order to pre-

plan and mitigate natural disasters effectively (Hill & Finster, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013;

Sadiq & Weible, 2010; Smith, 2011). Clarke (2013) suggested that transformational leadership

has the capacity to directly impact the implementation of disaster preparedness. Transformational

leadership (Northouse, 2011) is a method of leadership that utilizes four specific components,

including individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and

idealized influence, to emphasize the ways in which leaders can start, develop and create

significant change within an organizational setting. In relation to pre-planning and disaster

management, higher education institutional administrators and safety leaders are considered to

8
wield a high amount of idealized influence with regard to student safety (Glendon, Clarke &

McKenna, 2006). Therefore, through the use and implementation of transformational leadership,

higher learning administrators and safety personnel might model appropriate knowledge and

preplanning practices for students (Bishop, 2013; Burns, 1978; Clarke, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa,

2013).

By encouraging students to be cognizant of preplanning, higher levels of safety

awareness could be enhanced. However, without the use of innovative methods for

demonstrating concern for student safety and engagement, the leadership’s efforts at

communication could fall short. Through transformational leadership, according to Clarke

(2013), students may form a more “compliant safety citizenship behavior on campus by

complying in safety protocols and participating in preplanning mitigation drills, exercises and

educational seminars” (p. 26). From a safety perspective, transformational leadership could

potentially promote a better understanding of safety issues and improved communication

(Conchie, Taylor, & Donald, 2012). However, it is still unclear how students perceive efforts on

the part of higher learning institutions to pre-plan, mitigate and respond to natural disasters.

Research Questions

The research questions that drove this case study and qualitative research design were as

follows:

1. What are the perceptions of students at a medium-sized, public institution of the

preparedness of their college to respond to natural disasters?

2. To what extent does a higher education institution effectively communicate disaster

response plans and emergency preparedness efforts to its students?

9
 3. What steps are critical in the dissemination of important information regarding

emergency response efforts to students at a higher education institution?

Significance of the Study

Despite the increased frequency of natural disasters, higher learning institutions still fall

short in adequate disaster management and emergency preparedness (Beaton et al., 2007;

Bishop, 2013; Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Watson et al., 2011). Mitigation efforts and effective

response plans have the capacity to reduce the impact of a natural disaster and enhance the

resiliency of campus life (Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011).

Understanding students’ perceptions of natural disaster preparedness and emergency response

plans may enhance communication between university safety personnel, administration and

students during a disaster (Clarke, 2013). Lalonde (2007) suggested that the speed at which an

organization communicates vital information is directly proportionate to the level of success of

the response effort itself. However, the majority of planning initiatives follow a reactive plan

rather than a pre-plan process (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers et al., 2010; Smith, 2011).

Carman (2003) not only indicated the need for higher education institutions to respond quickly to

crises, but also emphasized the need for effective communication with students. Thus,

understanding the perceptions of students regarding natural disaster response should enhance the

effectiveness of emergency management during a natural disaster (Myer et al., 2010; Zdziarski et

al., 2007).

A careful examination of students’ perceptions of disaster management and emergency

preparedness efforts at a select institution may offer insight into the effectiveness of natural

disaster plans and response efforts. Coombs (2007) proffered that effective disaster response is

linked to the perceptions of the individuals affected by the incident. A natural disaster creates a

10
threat to basic human needs and has the capacity to disrupt the daily operation of an entire

campus, as well as the surrounding community (Myers et. al, 2010; Spokane et al., 2011).

Therefore, understanding students’ perceptions is instrumental for the evaluation of higher

education institutions’ natural disaster and emergency management procedures (Lalonde, 2007;

Myers et al., 2010; Watson, 2011; Zdziarski et al., 2007).

Definition of Terms

Natural Disaster: any destructive incident that occurs as a result of natural or

environmental activity, which includes but is not limited to hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes,

tropical storms, and fire that occurs strictly on a college campus.

Traditional Aged Student: any individual enrolled in courses at a higher education

institution between the ages of 18-24 (Dugan & Komives, 2010; Wyatt, 2011).

Medium-Sized Public Institution: an institution that operates within a state’s higher

education system and has fewer than 20,000 undergraduate students.

Administrator: any person involved in the decision-making process at a higher education

institution. This person does not need to be part of the disaster management team, but can

typically be identified by a twelve-month contract.

Emergency Response Plan: a plan outlined by an institution for the purpose of

sufficiently preparing for an emergency or disaster.

Emergency Preparedness: the ability of an institution to effectively respond to a disaster

through the protection of students, property and documentation.

Disaster Management: a methodical approach to avoid disaster or supervise disaster

within the organization (Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Mitroff, Diamond & Alpaslan, 2006).

11
 Disaster Management Team: any group of individuals employed by the university and

involved in the decision-making process before, during and after a disaster.

Natural Disaster Preparedness (aka Hazard Mitigation): the degree to which an

institution is prepared to effectively handle a natural disaster, including detailed steps and

procedural documents.

Disaster Communication: the ability of an institution to disseminate valuable information

to students in response to a disaster.

Transformational Leadership: a method of leadership in which leaders start, develop and

create significant change within an organizational setting through the use of individual

consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence

(Northouse, 2011).

Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations

Utilizing a qualitative research approach, this study explored the perceptions of students

regarding disaster management and emergency preparedness at a higher learning institution. It

was assumed that the individuals interviewed would answer questions posed during an interview

both honestly and fully. It was also assumed that participation from college students would be

easily accessible. It should be noted that this study only evaluated students’ perceptions of

campus disaster response plans and emergency preparedness efforts and did not include

administrators or office staff.

Evaluation of other campus disasters, such as human and technical disasters, was not

conducted. Cross-campus comparison was attempted at additional higher education institutions;

however, access was limited despite extensive efforts. Therefore, this study was reduced to

12
garner knowledge of students’ perceptions of natural disaster preparedness and emergency

response plans at a singular higher education institution.

There were several specific limitations based on the qualitative methodology and scope

of this study. First, in hopes of gaining a deeper contextual understanding about natural disasters

at one higher education institution, this study did not adequately address other areas of campus

issues that plague higher education such as cheating, hazing and school shootings. Furthermore,

understanding both human and technical aspects of disaster management were not within the

context of this study. This study focused solely and exclusively on student perceptions regarding

disaster management and emergency preparedness. While the literature review provided a

thorough exploration of current research, higher education institutions may choose to utilize the

results of this study for assessing their preparedness efforts and evaluate their ability to

disseminate emergency response information to students and stakeholders based on their own

disaster plans.

Further, this study only looked at a single, medium-sized, public higher education

institution. The institution represented a microcosm snapshot of similar higher education

institutions across the country based on the institution’s recruitment practices, student

demographics, locations and potential for natural disaster incidents. Higher education institutions

all have unique characteristics based on size, geographic boundaries and institutional mission,

and they cannot be easily grouped into categories (Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Kapucu & Khosa,

2013; Lucas, 2006). It is not expected that the results from this study can be generalized across

higher education institutions; instead, these findings might be replicated at alternative institutions

for more specific institutional findings.

13
 This study intentionally examined students’ perceptions in order to better understand

successful disaster communication techniques at one particular higher learning institution. The

results and conclusions of this study should be explored at additional postsecondary institutions

and administrative and safety personnel should consider the perceptions of students with regard

to future disaster response plans and emergency preparedness efforts.

There are also delimitations in this study. First, I realize that there are various aspects of

campus disasters at higher education institutions that include not only environmental but also

human and technical aspects (Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski, 2007). This study only explored

natural disaster response to further improve emergency management planning and public

administration through the lens of students’ perceptions. In addition, this study did not venture

into the financial or technical aspect of campus disaster response. Highlighting one specific issue

within the larger organizational system of a higher education institution could help add to the

research with regards to effective disaster communication techniques and how the student

population perceives these techniques. There was no effort to understand the perceptions of

administrators beyond the students’ perceptions of the communication process between campus

leadership and the student body. Other program activity, on and off campus, should also be

considered for disaster planning but those were beyond the scope of this study.

In addition, administrators encounter additional problems when the campus becomes the

disaster location, such as when Hurricane Katrina hit Tulane University. When the institution is

considered the disaster location for more than several hours or days, administrators must

consider recovery time as well as long-term resiliency (Bishop, 2013; Burrell & Heiselt, 2012).

Higher education administrators for effective disaster planning efforts must consider the scope of

14
natural and other disasters. Future research should identify ways to improve both the sharing of

information between schools and university contingency plans that address these issues.

Nature of the Study

Viewing emergency response plans and disaster preparedness as a process has the

capacity to link closely with the theoretical framework of transformational leadership theory.

Transformational leadership asks leaders to utilize individual consideration, intellectual

stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence to start, develop and create

significant change within an organizational setting (Northouse, 2011). Leaders empower

followers, act as role models, produce a shared vision, and encourage collaboration amongst the

organization (Northouse, 2011). Transformational leadership must be viewed as a process that is

predicated on the leadership’s ability to manage critical situations by understanding the

perceptions of others (Bass, 1998; Bishop, 2013; Burns 1978; Clarke, 2013; Jenkins, 2008;

Palmer, Walls, Burgess, & Stough, 2001; Northouse, 2011). Jenkins (2008) helped identify the

link between transformational leadership theory, emergency response planning and disaster

preparedness. Jenkins’ qualitative study of small institutions found that in-line authority had a

significant influence on emergency response planning and preparedness efforts (Clarke, 2013;

Hill & Finster, 2013; Jenkins, 2008). Jenkins (2008) also identified institutional leadership and

culture as two factors that influence successful emergency response efforts on college campuses.

Viewing emergency response efforts and natural disaster preparedness within the field of

transformational leadership theory could help improve student perception of natural disaster

preparedness and emergency response efforts at higher education institutions. It is unrealistic to

assume students know how to prepare and respond to a natural disaster on campus when higher

learning leadership is unfamiliar with the proper response protocols (Byrne, 2008; Clarke, 2013;

15
Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). Safety is a significant factor in determining student engagement at

higher education institutions and consequently should be treated as a priority by those in

leadership positions (Hill & Finster, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; “Student Engagement,” n.d.).

This study utilized transformational leadership as the theoretical framework for understanding

students’ perceptions of natural disaster planning and emergency preparedness efforts at a higher

education institution. Through the use of a qualitative research method this study asked students’

about the emergency management efforts at their higher education institution in hopes of

providing a clear understanding of the ability of the university to both respond to natural

disasters and effectively communicate the natural disaster response plan and emergency

preparedness efforts.

Summary

This study intended to highlight a gap in the literature on natural disaster response plans

and emergency preparedness efforts at a higher education institution by offering an analysis of

student perceptions. Current literature highlights inefficient communication as a huge obstacle

for higher education institutions with regards to emergency preparedness and natural disaster

plans (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013, Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et. al,

2007).

This study may help to fill a gap in the literature by offering a closer understanding of

students’ perceptions about natural disaster response and emergency preparedness efforts.

Disaster response is closely tied to leadership theory in that neither takes place in a vacuum and

both result from complex social interactions (Bishop, 2013; Burns, 1978; Clarke, 2013; Fillmore

et al., 2011; Jenkins, 2008). It is the researchers hope that by linking natural disaster response

and emergency preparedness to leadership theory, higher education institutions could have a

16
better understanding of how to effectively disseminate information to university students and

stakeholders, thereby preserving lives of students and staff.

17
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Due to the increase in both the frequency and magnitude of natural disasters in recent

years, it is essential to understand student perceptions of emergency response plans and natural

disaster preparedness at higher education institutions (Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa,

2013; Watson et al., 2011). How a higher learning institution prepares and responds to natural

disasters impacts university reputation and consumer perception of higher learning institutions

(Myers et al., 2010; Rolle & Zdziarski, 2007). Because of the magnitude of steps and various

agencies involved in the decision-making process, emergency response efforts can be confusing

(FEMA, 2003). Currently, both community colleges and four-year higher education institutions

treat emergency response efforts with secondary importance (Rolle & Zdziarski, 2007; Smith,

2011).

This study illuminates students’ perceptions of disaster management and emergency

response to natural disasters at a higher education institution. The scope of this study utilized a

case study format to investigate only issues that fall under the natural disaster category of

campus disaster. This chapter offers a thorough review of current literature regarding emergency

services management and higher learning institutions, thereby framing the gap in current

knowledge between students’ perceptions of disaster management and emergency response.

Emergency Management Background

The necessity for a higher education institution to provide a safe environment in terms of

natural disasters is a complex problem in the 21st century (National Association of Student

Personnel Administrators, 2007). According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are over

4000 combined two-year, four-year, public and private higher education institutions in the

18
United States with over 15 million students currently participating in higher education (Digest of

Education Statistics, 2013). Each institution has the obligation to ensure the protection and well

being of those on their campuses and to supply suitable guidelines, procedures, and plans to

uphold secure campuses (Conchie et al., 2012). As a result of the recent natural disasters at

higher education institutions, universities are beginning to re-evaluate their procedures, plans and

strategies for promoting campus safety (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013; Hill & Finster, 2013;

Kapucu & Khosa, 2013).

Zdziarski (2006), defined a disaster as “an event, which is often sudden or unexpected,

that disrupts the normal operations of the institution or its educational mission and threatens the

well being of personnel, property, financial resources, and/or reputation of the institution” (p. 5).

Emergency response refers to the ability of an organization to react “constructively to threats

from the environment in a way that minimizes the negative consequences of impact for the

health and safety of individuals and the integrity and functioning of physical structures and

systems” (Perry & Lindell, 2003, p. 338). Emergency management contains a multitude of

definitions and a dynamic developmental history. Its various definitions can be broad and

encompassing, and it has been response-based throughout history, responding to specific events

rather than prescribing solutions (Myers et al., 2010). Emergency management is essentially the

“discipline of dealing with risk and risk avoidance” (Haddow, Bullock & Coppola, 2007, p. 3).

The ability of higher education institutions to deal with emergencies will be examined more and

more frequently as instances of disaster continue to increase on campus. Understanding the

emergency management terminology and framework for response is beneficial for the

comprehension of federal emergency response procedures.

19
 One of the first examples of emergency management dates back to 1803 when the U. S.

government provided a small town in New Hampshire with financial assistance in response to a

destructive fire (FEMA, 2003; Haddow et al., 2007). Current emergency management response

to natural disasters can be traced back to the Flood Control Act of 1934, enacted by the

Roosevelt administration (Haddow et al., 2007). This act gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

permission to build and manufacture instruments aimed at controlling floods. Beyond the

instance of governmental funding, the Flood Control Act of 1934 instilled the ideology that

human preparedness and technology could control natural disasters. This philosophy has

persisted as the foundation of the emergency management field and remains at the forefront of

most emergency management models (FEMA, 2003; Haddow et al., 2007; Smith, 2011).

The next major development within the emergency management field occurred during the

Cold War era. This time period is characterized by legislation resulting from the launching of

Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957; much of that legislation affected the education sector. The

National Defense Education Act of 1958 increased governmental funding exponentially in the

fields of research and science in secondary, post-secondary and higher education (Lucas, 2006).

This era sparked the formation of the Federal Civil Defense Administration, as well as the

Department of Defense. These two departments ultimately merged in 1958 under the Office of

Civil Defense and Mobilization (Haddow et al., 2007) and are linked to the emergency

management field because they introduced the ideology of disaster preparedness, an underlying

theme in the emergency management profession.

During the 1970’s, it became clear that there was a distinct disconnect between

emergency management departments and agencies. Before 1978, there were five federal

agencies, which included the Department of Commerce, Treasury Department, General Services

20
Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (Haddow et al., 2007; Myers et al., 2010). In an attempt to combat the disconnect

between agencies with overlapping missions, on July 19, 1978, the Carter Administration formed

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (Haddow et al., 2007).

In the 1990’s, sociologists identified emergency management as the coordination of

science, technology, preparation and leadership to avert injury, loss of life, property damage and

the interruption of community operations (Drabek & Hoetmer, 1991). This agency still had its

problems throughout the late 1970’s and 1980’s. However, the problem of disconnect was

improved after the nomination of James Witt as the director of FEMA (Haddow et al., 2007).

Public administrators have been consistently slow or neglectful to categorize emergency

management as a function of their position (Petak, 1985). Historically, emergency management

was considered a function of law enforcement and fire department offices (Petak, 1985). James

Witt did an excellent job of providing leadership for and connectedness between local and

federal agencies (Haddow et al., 2007).

The terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 forged the next major changes to emergency

management (Myers et al., 2010). Emergency response efforts in the United States have not been

the same since the events that occurred on September 11, 2001 when terrorists destroyed the

World Trade Center. The events of that day impacted a wide range of political, economic and

social domains, and its effects were especially prevalent within the field of emergency

management. Often described as the “ultimate focusing event,” the terrorist attacks of 9/11 did

highlight the need for an inward, all-hazards approach to emergency management within the

United States (Dept. Homeland Security, 2003, HSPD-5; Smith, 2011).

21
 The first major policy change as a result of 9/11 was the creation of the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS). In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

which had previously been considered an independent agency, became incorporated in the DHS

and identified as the lead agency for emergency preparedness and response (Dept. Homeland

Security, 2003, HSPD-5). A series of presidential directives have been implemented since 9/11,

but to further explain the scope of this study, only two need to be incorporated: HSPD-5

Management of Domestic Incidents and HSPD-8 National Preparedness. HSPD-5 helped

identify the National Response Plan (NRP) and the National Incident Management System

(NIMS), both of which are the foundation for current disaster response efforts in the United

States (Dept. Homeland Security, 2003, HSPD-5). Legislation was also passed that demanded

federal agencies adopt NIMS and required that all agencies obtaining federal funding adhere to

the organizational system (Dept. Homeland Security, 2003, HSPD-5). Most notable of these

changes was the development of the Department of Homeland Security, but the emergency

management field experienced several other distinct changes such as the issuing of Presidential

directives, the implementing of new preparedness and disaster management programs, and the

reorganizing of current programs (Tierney, 2006). It is important to understand that the series of

Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPD) mentioned above have forever changed the

landscape of emergency management (Tierney, 2006). While under the HSPD initiatives there

were several important sections, the most notable to the general public was HSPD-5, and it was

intended to develop a “concept of operations for disasters that would incorporate all levels of

government as well as disaster and consequence management functions” under one uniformed

framework (Tierney, 2006, p. 4). HSPD-5 continues to structure the disaster response efforts in

the United States and is currently both a catalyst and a basis for communication strategies.

22
 In response to HSPD-5, the National Response Plan (NRP) and National Incident

Management System (NIMS) were formed. The NIMS utilizes the Incident Command System

(ICS) as a classifying configuration to manage disasters (Tierney, 2006). All agencies that

benefit or receive government funding must adhere to standards set forth by NIMS (Myers et al.,

2010; Tierney, 2006). Both NIMS and ICS are seen as frameworks for organizing personnel,

resources and communication when dealing with an emergency such as a natural disaster. Each

emphasizes that emergency planning is a process of continual analysis, development, training

and critique (Fillmore et al., 2011; Hill & Finster, 2013; Perry & Lindell, 2003). The first aspect

of a successful emergency response plan is that it must come from accurate knowledge, which

can only be produced from a risk assessment and vulnerability review (Perry & Lindell, 2003).

Secondly, emergency response plans must address interagency coordination and collaboration.

Not only should collaboration be celebrated but it must be made easily accessible. Cooperation

between various agencies at the local, state and sometimes federal level is needed to effectively

deal with a disaster or emergency (Clarke, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013;

Perry & Lindell, 2003). Finally, it must be recognized that emergency response plans are never

fully developed. Continuous testing, drills and analysis must be conducted on current plans to

prepare for future threats. Once a plan becomes static, it becomes ineffective (Fillmore et al.,

2011; Hill & Finster, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Perry & Lindell, 2003; Smith, 2011).

In recent years, higher education institutions have acknowledged an increase in campus

disaster, highlighted by Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy and the tornado that swept through

the University of Alabama (Myers et al., 2010; Sadiq & Weible, 2010). As pointed out by

Zdziarski et al. (2007), larger institutions are much more likely to be well enough equipped to

deal with disaster. Institutions often lack the resource organization and must develop effective

23
disaster management protocols in order to provide sufficient “ethics of care” in the wake of

disaster (Conchie, et al., 2012; Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007). The role of the

traditional university has been to provide access, promote citizenship, conduct research, and

offer a safe environment for students to develop socially and academically (Bok, 2006; Lucas,

2006; Morey, 2004). In recent years, decreased funding and the shift of education from a public

to a private good have characterized higher education (Dimas et al., 2011; Morey, 2004). Market

forces have begun to transform postsecondary education. Globalization and technological

advances have created a “real time, globally connected world” (Morey, 2004, p. 185).

The need for appropriate disaster response and disaster management plans has never been

more pertinent within the realm of higher education institutions. Beyond merely establishing

institutional plans, it is essential to effectively disseminate important information to students and

various stakeholders within the university system (Beaton et al., 2007; Burrell & Heiselt, 2012).

The role of communication in higher education institutions, as well as the effectiveness of

University A with regards to communicating emergency protocols to its students, will be

evaluated during the discussion section. Students are the primary responsibility of any higher

education institution and the essence of the education system, yet they are rarely asked to express

their perceptions—even more rarely their understanding and awareness—of how to respond to a

campus emergency or disaster. An emergency response plan is meaningless without clearly

defined boundaries and operational procedures (Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013).

Not only key administrative personnel must understand these operational procedures, but also by

the individuals the plan is designed to protect (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013).

24
 Natural Disasters at Higher Education Institutions

The academy is viewed as “protected place where reason and unfettered inquiry reign

supreme” (Lucas, 2006, p. 327). The environment where the learning takes place is just as

important as the content (Cantor & Courant, 2003). Safety is a huge component of the academy

and can be one of the determining factors with regards to student attendance and especially

parental support (Zemsky, 2009). Personal attention and safety are two indicators of collegiate

choice for undergraduate students (Conchie et al., 2012; Zemsky, 2009). Higher Education

institutions were formed in accordance with the in loco parentis—or “in place of parents”—

ideology. Colleges are charged with the task providing an ethic of care for the students residing

on campus.

Natural disasters are becoming an increasing threat in the twenty-first century (Clarke,

2013; Penning & Grossman, 2008; Sadiq & Weible, 2010; Watson et al., 2011). The inability of

an organization to respond quickly and efficiently to a disaster can be detrimental to that

organization (Penning & Grossman, 2008). The previously outlined structural, governance and

population characteristics of higher education make those institutions vulnerable during natural

disasters (Myers et al., 2010). Each college must be conscious of its individual vulnerability to

natural disasters based on its geographical location (Perry & Lindell, 2003; Zdziarski et al.,

2007). The following paragraphs will highlight various natural disasters and their impact on

higher education institutions.

On January 17, 1994, California State University-Northridge (CSUN) experienced a 6.7-

magnitude earthquake whose epicenter was within a mile of the main campus (Zdziarski et al.,

2007). At the time it was considered the biggest natural disaster in terms of economic devastation

in U.S. history, damaging over $40 billion worth of property, including over $400 million worth

25
of damages at CSUN (Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007). Tragedy struck again on

September 24, 2001 when a Category 3 tornado hit the University of Maryland Campus and

caused nearly $15 million in property damage (Zdziarski et al., 2007). In 1992 Hurricane

Andrew devastated the University of Miami causing over $13 million in damage (Myers et al.,

2010). While there are various natural disasters that impacted higher education institutions, the

most recognizable of these disasters occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina. On August 23,

2005, Hurricane Katrina touched down in New Orleans, crippling the city and its surrounding

areas. At the time of Katrina, New Orleans was home to more than 75,000 college students

across 15 higher education institutions (Schachter, 2006). Major colleges in the area include the

University of New Orleans, Dillard, Tulane and Xavier. It was estimated that there were several

billion dollars in losses with regards to structural damage, tuition and enrollment (Schachter,

2006).

Hurricane Katrina outlined the negative consequences associated with poor mitigation

such as unorganized resources, lack of communication and slow moving leadership decisions

(Laska & Morrow, 2006). Hurricane Katrina further highlighted the need for higher education

institutions to plan for disaster and be sure that natural disaster and emergency preparedness

policies are effectively communicated to the student body and local stakeholders. As

demonstrated by Katrina, a failure to respond quickly and effectively provide leadership during a

disaster may lead to an organizational breakdown (Clarke, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu &

Khosa, 2013). Conversely, adequate preparation and leadership initiatives have the capacity to

lessen the impact of a disaster (Beaton et al., 2007; Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Watson et al., 2011).

On April 27, 2011, tornadoes touched down in Tuscaloosa Alabama, just outside the

University of Alabama campus. Winds reached an estimated 190 mph and caused billions of

26
dollars’ worth of damage. In the aftermath it was found that the tornadoes left 6 students from

the University of Alabama dead and countless faculty and staff injured. School administrators

called off classes for the remainder of spring 2011, cancelled exams and pushed the graduation

ceremony back to August (Bishop, 2013).

Most recently, in October 2012, Hurricane Sandy crippled campuses from New York

City to New Jersey. The storm was characterized by high winds, water surges and a great deal of

rain. Fordham and New York University, among other universities, were shut down due to lack

of power. Communication with students was difficult and administrators took to social media to

contact the student body (Daly, 2012). Campuses in New Jersey, such as Princeton and Rutgers,

also reported a lack of power and unsafe campus conditions (Mangan, 2012). In addition, the

storm claimed the life of a 23-year-old graduate student from the City University of New York’s

Brooklyn College. All of these instances highlight the need for continual planning and

preplanning efforts at higher education institutions.

Disaster Management and Preparedness

on Higher Education Campuses

Higher education institutions attempt to meet the needs of the students they serve both

socially and economically (Altbach, Gumport & Berdahl, 2011; Lucas, 2006). As societies

continue to become more complex, a more trained and skilled workforce is needed to meet job

market demands. Higher education institutions help train and educate citizens to compete in a

global job market (Altbach et al., 2011; Bok, 2006). Higher education institutions’ purpose is to

produce an educated class of citizens equipped with communication, critical thinking and moral

reasoning skills to help them participate in a democratic society (Bok, 2006).

27
 Research indicates, however, that organizational characteristics can provide barriers to

emergency response planning efforts, and that those barriers can be detrimental if not sufficiently

addressed (Clarke, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers et al., 2010; Perry & Lindell, 2003;

Smith, 2011; Zdziarski et al., 2007). Higher education institutions possess several of these

characteristics that can act as barriers in the emergency response planning process (Bishop, 2013;

Clarke, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). These characteristics can be categorized into structural,

governance and population categories.

Higher education institutions are dynamic, fluid and always changing. Several structural

characteristics of higher education institutions make them unique and problematic to the

emergency response planning process. First, college campuses are generally open, with few

geographic boundaries such as fences and gates, making them difficult to patrol (Kapucu &

Khosa, 2013; Myers et al., 2010). Second, regardless of the size of the study body, higher

education institutions are often large entities that resemble small towns. Third, colleges often

include complex entities beyond the institution such as hospitals, research centers, athletic

complexes, and transportation systems (Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007). Finally,

colleges do not operate during the regular business hours of most organizations. Students are on

campus all hours of the day and remain active well beyond the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. business model

(Myer et al., 2011; Zdziarski et al., 2007). These structural characteristics of higher education

institutions place increased pressure on administrators during the emergency planning process.

The next major issue with higher education institutions and responses to emergency

situations are their organization and governance characteristics. Higher education institutions are

often organized in academic silos (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Myers et al., 2010). Higher

education governance is often characterized as a "loose coupling" without a clear organizational

28
flow chart (Weick, 1976; Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). In addition, literature (Bok, 2006; Kezar &

Eckel, 2008; Zemsky, 2009) has focused on the importance (and lack thereof) of collaboration

between the academic silos at higher education institutions. Such an emphasis is placed on

scholarship, publishing, teaching and community service that most higher education institutions

lack the channels for collaborative efforts between these spheres.

The same-shared governance approach in higher education institutions that is celebrated

within the academic realm poses a problem to administrators during an emergency or disaster

(Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myer et al., 2011). While this independence allows the academy to

ensure creativity, scholarship and research, it also affects responsiveness when faced with

campus disaster (Myer et al., 2011). As the landscape of higher education continues to change,

administrators are confronted with new challenges. This shifting dynamic places an increased

pressure on the shared governance to respond quickly (Eckel, 2000). Higher education

institutions promote the professional autonomy of their faculty and celebrate the production of

independent research (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). These priorities also create a

“compartmentalization” syndrome wherein various departments operate independent of each

other (Myer et al., 2011, p. 57). Characteristics of “compartmentalization” include the closing of

lines of communication and the inability to share resources. Both of these characteristics are

essential procedures in emergency management planning (Myer et al., 2011, p. 57; Mitroff et al.,

2006; Perry & Lindell, 2003; Zdziarski et al., 2007).

The final problematic characteristic of higher education institutions as it relates to

emergencies—the one that makes them unique in the emergency response planning and natural

disaster preparedness—is the population they serve. First, student populations at higher

education institutions are typically over 18 years of age and legally considered adults. While

29
there is a certain ethic of care for higher education institutions, there are certain privacies and

legal rights afforded to adults through the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

(Zdziarski et al., 2007). Second, students and universities do not operate under the normal

business hours of an organization. Students are often seen roaming their campuses at all hours of

the night, attending classes, studying, eating and even participating in extracurricular and

entertainment activities (Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007). While some students live on

campus, many reside nearby in student housing or private lodging, making communication

across the population difficult at best.

In addition, there is a diverse population of students attending higher education

institutions in the 21st century. Bok (2006), indicated that more than half of undergraduate

students in America are women, 10 percent are African American, eight percent are Asian, seven

percent are Hispanic and three percent are international (Bok, 2006). Students are often

considered a transient population, as the same students are not on campus day-to-day or

semester-to-semester. This continuously changing population increases the need to make sure

that information regarding disaster preparedness and emergency response efforts are effectively

disseminated to students and other local stakeholders.

Emergency response plans must be flexible and fluid (Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu &

Khosa, 2013; Myer et al., 2011; Smith, 2011; U.S. DOE, 2009). Too much structure and

authoritative oversight tends to cripple the response effort. This limitation became distinctly

evident during Hurricane Katrina, as the highly structured emergency response system, lack of

flexibility and an inability to collaborate with nongovernmental agencies were all cited as major

failures of the emergency response effort across the city (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Waugh &

Streib, 2006). Emergency management is predicated on the ideology of a bottom-up response for

30
good reason (Myers et al., 2010; Smith, 2011; U.S. DOE, 2007). Natural disasters and

emergencies are both environmental and social phenomenon, and no emergency has the same set

of characteristics (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers et al., 2010; Smith, 2011). The dynamic and

diverse characteristics of the disasters themselves, as well as the communities they impact,

validate the need for a bottom-up approach. Those at the local level possess an in-depth

understanding of the geographical and social challenges present at the community level (Clarke,

2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011; U.S. DOE, 2007).

By initiating the process and then progressing with the help of the federal government,

emergency response efforts can effectively enhance a return to normalcy after a disaster, e.g.

flood, earthquake, tornado or hurricane occurs (Beaton et al., 2007; Fillmore et al., 2011; Hill &

Finster, 2013; Smith, 2011). Effectively using transformational leadership has the capacity to

encourage individuals in an organization to forgo personal goals and align themselves with the

goals of the organization (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013; Flin & Yule, 2004). This type of behavior

creates a unified organization and improves the quality of the organization (Clarke, 2013; Flin &

Yule, 2004). Emergencies present a paradox in that they require a great deal of planning efforts

yet often occur instantly (Myers et al., 2010; U.S. DOE, 2009; Waugh & Streib, 2006).

Leadership was identified as the catalyst behind the poor response effort during both 9/11 and

Hurricane Katrina (Bishop, 2013; Waugh & Streib, 2006). Flin and Yule found that, “Effective

leadership has been shown to improve safety performance in high hazard and complex”

organizational environments (2004, p. 50). The House Select Committee identified a failure of

“initiative” during both of these emergencies and identified the need to both gather high quality

information and provide a means of communicating this information between agencies (Waugh

& Streib, 2006, p. 132).

31
 Leadership in Emergency Conditions

In 2006, Donald Kettle addressed the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and

Governmental Affairs and mentioned leadership as a crucial yet missing element in the response

to Hurricane Katrina (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Waugh & Streib, 2006). Due to the

interconnectedness of hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness, disaster response and disaster

recovery, a flexible leadership approach is required (Fillmore et al., 2011; Myers et al., 2010;

Smith, 2011; Waugh & Streib, 2006) In addition, an adaptive management system and the

encouraged sharing of information would help to stimulate collaboration while “fostering

organizational learning” (Waugh & Streib, 2006, p. 136). The capacity of emergency

management is built from the ground up (Bishop, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011;

Waugh & Streib, 2006). Collaborative efforts are a fundamental component of any successful

emergency response (Bishop, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Waugh & Streib, 2006).

Transformational leadership asks the leader to actively communicate with followers and

relate to them on a personal level (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2011). According to the

Commission and the House Select Committee, during Katrina city officials and administrative

leadership lacked imagination and an ability to contour the current emergency management

protocols to fit the local geographic and social characteristics of New Orleans (Waugh & Streib,

2006).

In accordance with the ideologies introduced by Goldsmith and Eggers (2004) in (Waugh

& Streib, 2006), flexibility must be an essential component for leaders during an emergency

situation. The hierarchical decision making process neither allows neither the capacity for nor the

ability to make these types of speedy decisions. The shared governance that characterizes most

higher education institutions also slows down the decision making process (Bergquist & Pawlak,

32
2008). Not only do decisions need to be made quickly, but this information must also be

effectively communicated to those participating within the organization (Bishop, 2013; Clarke,

2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). Methodologies for distributing this information must be

multifaceted, as disasters impart a plethora of impacts on technological means of

communication. Currently the emergency management field follows an all-hazards approach to

emergency response (Flin & Yule, 2004; Lindell, 2013; Smith, 2011). Accreditation requires that

leaders be exposed to both education and experiences in all four phases of disaster management

(mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery) (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Waugh & Streib,

2006). Understanding all of the functions within the field of emergency management requires

leaders to understand and consider the overarching goals of the community. A successful leader

must combine technical, human and conceptual thinking skills in order to effectively manage an

emergency situation (Northouse, 2011). The need for broad-based thinking and “effective

leadership skills are not radically different from any other public administration activities,” but

the consequences of their absence in disaster management are far more ominous and devastating

to the community (Waugh & Streib, 2006, p. 132). These attributes can be difficult to achieve

because such dire situations inherently produce a robust, deep-seeded desire for hierarchical

control (Myers et al., 2010; Waugh & Streib, 2006). There is no denying the need for a quick

reaction to any type of emergency situation and for strong leadership; an effective response,

however, is far less likely to occur without proper mitigation and collaborative efforts (Beaton et

al., 2007; Fillmore et al., 2011; Myers et al., 2010; Smith, 2011; Waugh & Streib, 2006).

As pointed out by Donald Kettle (2006) in his congressional testimony, “leadership has

been a serious problem for FEMA and DHS” (Waugh & Streib, 2006, p. 133). The type of

leadership needed to promote effective management of an emergency situation must “be derived

33
from vision and strategic thinking” as opposed to hierarchical control (Waugh & Streib, 2006, p.

139). Transformational leadership theory offers a plausible vehicle for change within the field of

emergency management. As mentioned above, this type of leadership takes a personal interest in

each individual within an organization and, through four core competencies–individualized

consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence–seeks to

link personal and organizational objectives (Bass, 1998; Bishop, 2013; Burns, 1978; Clarke,

2013; Northouse, 2011; Waugh & Streib, 2006).

Kezar and Eckel (2008) performed a qualitative study evaluating the use of transactional

and transformational leadership factors by administrators at higher education institutions. This

study highlighted the benefits of using transformational leadership styles to reach different

audiences in higher education institutions. Regardless, institutional cultures are seen as a viable

predictor of leadership style (Grundy, 2013). Kezar and Eckel (2008), also highlighted the

importance of adopting leadership styles that can co-exist within the institutional culture, and it

pointed out that different leadership styles must be utilized in accordance with the current phase

in the institutional change process. Kezar and Eckel (2008) specifically stressed the importance

of situational leadership and suggested that leaders modify their leadership style in congruence

with characteristics such as the organizational culture and the developmental level of followers.

The findings of Kezar and Eckel (2008) were important, however limitations were present due to

a lack of understanding about the ways in which students feel about administrative efforts.

During disasters, higher education institutions must act quickly and decisively. There is a

need for in-line decision-making by authority when faced with natural disasters at higher

education institutions (Bishop, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myer et al., 2010). Administrators

34
must understand that emphasizing the planning process can have a huge influence on the success

and implementation of emergency response efforts.

The second problem, in addition to the lack of flexibility within plans and strict

hierarchical control, involves the scope and focus of current disaster emergency management

plans at higher education institutions. Typically, higher education institutions limit the scope of

emergency plans to only address the needs of the student population (Myer et al., 2010). While

the students are an important aspect of higher education institutions, limiting the scope of the

response to only one segment of the population may ultimately cause a major disruption to the

organization (Myer et al., 2010). A limited plan that only addresses a portion of the campus may

further delay the recovery process for the institution (Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Myer et. al, 2010).

Research suggests that effective emergency preparedness efforts improve the ability to

effectively communicate pertinent information to those impacted by the emergency (Waugh &

Streib, 2006). For example, when analyzing the response effort with regards to Hurricane

Katrina, the House Select Committee identified a failure of “initiative” and identified the need to

gather high quality information and provide a means of communicating this information between

agencies (Waugh & Streib, 2006, p. 132). The organizational and geographical characteristics of

higher education institutions also present similar communication barriers (Bok, 2006; Bergquist

& Pawlak, 2008; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers, et al., 2010). Once both effective

communication and the best way to disseminate information are determined, higher education

administrators can figure out how to address external stakeholders and the community with

regards to natural disaster preparedness and emergency response procedures. While Zemsky

(2009) indicated that organizational change sometimes requires a “dislodging event, creating

sufficient momentum that change becomes possible and eventually inevitable,” this reactive

35
mindset with regard to natural disasters is not sustainable among higher education institutions (p.

208).

The third problem with current emergency response plans includes out-of-date

procedures. Research indicates a common misconception that having an emergency response

plan means one is prepared for an emergency (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). Merely having a plan in

place does not constitute preparedness (Bishop, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa,

2013; Myer et al., 2010; Perry & Lindell, 2003). Lack of constant analysis can result in out-of-

date technologies and personnel procedures. Higher education institutions are continuously

changing personnel and technological capabilities, which are essential to the emergency planning

process (Myer et al., 2011; Perry & Lindell, 2003).

Finally, the absence of practice and training efforts is an issue in higher education

emergency response planning (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myer, et al., 2011). Practicing

emergency response plans involves additional financial resources and time on the part of

university administrators. With current budget cuts to higher education at the state and federal

levels, financial funds are often used for daily operational issues rather than emergency response

training (Myer et al., 2011). Mitroff et al., (2006) indicated the importance of training in the

emergency response planning process. Individuals should not be trained separately but together

with abundant support from those in leadership positions (Clarke, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011;

Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Mitroff et al., 2006).

To work around these governance characteristics, higher education institutions must

develop clear, dynamic, and prescriptive procedures for dealing with disasters (Hill & Finster,

2013; Jenkins, 2008; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011). Recent incidents such as 9/11,

Hurricane Katrina and the Virginia Tech shootings have placed an increased emphasis on

36
“disaster and emergency management procedures” at higher education institutions (Jenkins,

2008, p. 89). Kiernan (2005) highlighted that while higher education institutions have placed an

increased importance on disaster preparation, those preparations are still inadequate.

Dolan (2006) pointed out that while the previously mentioned disasters served as a

catalyst for higher education administrators, colleges are not nearly prepared to combat disaster.

Higher education institutions must be prepared to deal with organizational disaster on an

institutional level (Bishop, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). Not only are higher education

institutions compartmentalized, but they also lack the rapid decision making abilities needed for

responding to campus disaster (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013; Myers et al., 2010). Theorists such

as Mitroff and Pauchant (2001) suggested that the scope and magnitude of campus disaster will

continue to grow. It is important for higher education institutions to understand their role in

natural disaster response in the 21st century.

Higher education institutional leadership must move beyond the structural flaws of higher

education institutions. Governance structures of higher education institutions must not thwart the

emergency response planning process (Bishop, 2013; Myers et al., 2010). Political agendas must

not take the place of the importance of identifying an efficient emergency response plan (Myer et

al., 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007). Lessons must be learned from past experiences and failures

while future plans should be prescriptive and well practiced (Perry & Lindell, 2003; Smith, 2011;

Zdziarski et al., 2007). These necessities should be considered when designing and developing a

disaster and emergency response plan at higher education institutions.

Effective and efficient communication is a challenging task for emergency responders

during a disaster (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013; Mullins et al., 2012; Netter & Someren, 2011).

This aspect of disaster management is especially difficult for those involved in the emergency

37
response planning process at colleges and universities because of the organizational

characteristics associated with higher education institutions. In order to account for these

organizational characteristics such as governance, structure and population, administrators must

recognize the importance of communication in emergency response planning efforts (Bishop,

2013; Clarke, 2013; Perry & Lindell, 2003; Mitroff et al., 2006; Myer et al., 2011; Zdziarski et

al., 2007). In a time of disaster, individuals seek out top-level authority (Clarke, 2013; Fillmore

et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). Disaster communication efforts must be clear, succinct and

effectively disseminate information (Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Mullins et al., 2012; Perry &

Lindell, 2003).

Administrators should identify the various target audiences they want to reach and the

messages they want to communicate. Consistent messaging must be delivered to both internal

and external constituencies (Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007). As information becomes

available at one location, it must be disseminated to everyone within the organization (Netten &

Someren, 2011). It is essential that communication during a natural disaster be two-sided

(Burrell & Heiselt, 2012; Northouse, 2011). Not only should information be disseminated

downward from in-line authority, but also it should move upward to reach administrative

leadership (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myer et al., 2011; Zdziarski et al., 2007).

Communication during natural disasters is especially important for higher education

institutions. Natural disasters can include a number of incidents occurring simultaneously, which

creates a great deal of uncertainty. Effectively communicating information may help solidify

operational procedures and collaborative efforts for emergency responders (Burrell & Heiselt,

2012; Fillmore et al., 2011; Grundy, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Netten & Someren, 2011).

As highlighted by Hurricane Katrina, natural disasters have the ability to take out traditional

38
communication structures and technologies (Zdziarski et al., 2007). Several options for

information communication include the university website, university email response system,

sirens, and emergency alert systems associated with local television (Baron & Philbin, 2009;

Zdziarski et al., 2007). While these efforts may be viable options, it is essential to ascertain

whether or not the information has been effectively disseminated to the student population. This

study hopes to identify the best practice methods to communicate information regarding natural

disaster response plans and emergency preparedness efforts.

Recent research has indicated the impact of social media on the circulation of public

information (Baron & Philbin, 2009). In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings,

administrators realized that students check their social media accounts more frequently than their

email (Baron & Philbin, 2009). The effective dissemination of information during a disaster

could lead to increased collaboration and improved response measurements (Burrell & Heiselt,

2012; Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011). The utilization of social

media may be an integral part of all emergency response plans at higher education institutions

(Baron & Philbin, 2009; Myer et al., 2010; Netten & Someren, 2011).

Tracking these instances of natural disasters at higher education institutions highlights

some of the pitfalls in current emergency response plans and natural disaster preparedness.

Beyond the scope of the previously mentioned characteristics that accompany higher education

institutions, there are several areas where emergency response plans fall short in terms of

leadership and scope (Clarke, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Northouse, 2011). These unique

aspects of higher education institutions could be beneficial to consider during the natural disaster

and emergency preparedness efforts.

39
 Regardless of size or association with satellite campuses, institutions do not stand alone

in the wake of disaster. Interagency collaboration and communication at the local, state and

federal levels are typically involved in emergency response planning efforts (Lindell, 2013). Any

emergency response plan must include an Incident Command System (ICS), which is a tool to

ensure organizational structure during a disaster incident (Moynihan, 2007; Zdziarski et al.,

2007). This system is crucial for integrating interagency communication by delineating five

emergency response categories: command, operations, planning, logistics, finance and

administration (Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007).

While the Department of Homeland Security has made incorporation of the ICS

mandatory, it is still vital for organizations to create clear management objectives with an easily

understandable hierarchy of control (Lindell, 2013; Moynihan, 2007). The ICS allows different

types of agencies to effectively work together in response to a natural disaster (Moynihan, 2007).

Higher education institutions must understand that the role administrators’ play in effective

disaster management is dependent on that administrator's ability to coordinate communication

and collaboration between multiple agencies (Bishop, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Moynihan,

2007). The Cleary Act, as part of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, also introduced the

need for college campuses to include emergency management reports and procedures each year

(Zdziarski et al., 2007). Emergency management procedures include the formation and, more

importantly, the training of campus disaster management teams. An emergency response plan

should include threat assessment, disaster recovery, risk management, and business continuity

plans, all under the umbrella of a disaster management plan (Myer, et al., 2010). Risk

management plans (RMP) involve a continuous assessment of risks in order to minimize possible

disaster. They are used to identify areas that may inhibit the ability of an institution to provide a

40
sufficient recovery process (Myers et al., 2010). Business continuity plans focus on the ability of

higher education institutions to “maintain daily operations” (Myers et al., 2010, p. 51). Disaster

recovery plans are essential to the recovery process and must not only focuses on returning to

normal and daily operations, but they should also prioritize the recovery processes when massive

damage occurs (Myers et al., 2010; Smith, 2011).

A disaster management team is a group of people who are identified by the institution to

handle response efforts during a disaster (Zdziarski et al., 2007). The need for a disaster

management team arises during an organizational disaster, which can be defined as a time of

“ambiguity and risk” (Perry, Taylor & Doerfel, 2003, p. 208). Disaster management teams

provide oversight when a disaster occurs and participate in the preparedness process prior to the

occurrence of disaster (Myers et al., 2010). Disaster management teams must be able to work

collaboratively with other agencies and clearly understand their roles and responsibilities

(Bishop, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Zdziarski et al., 2007). While disaster management teams

are most visible during the time of disaster, the need for them arises long before the actual

disaster occurs. As pointed out by Smith (2011), too many plans follow a reactive pattern that

occurs after a campus is disturbed by a disaster. The role of a disaster management team (CMT)

should begin before the disaster occurs and long after it has finished.

Hartley and Rashman (2010) indicated the ideology that significant change requires

devoted action by a myriad of individuals. There are several criteria that should influence the

selection of CMT members. In order to create a close-knit environment and avoid stagnant,

bureaucratic decision making, CMT’s should include members from the business, student affairs,

legal, human resources, police, information technology, public relations, housing, health and

counseling and environmental health departments (Zdziarski et al., 2007). CMT members should

41
have certain skills, including availability, diverse communication skills, knowledge of resources,

assessment skills and a personality that is coachable and works well with others (Zdziarski et. al,

2007). Leadership within CMT’s should be clearly defined and is typically spearheaded by a

senior level administrator (Hill & Finster, 2013; Myer et al., 2010).

Transformational Leadership on Campus

Common trends throughout the literature suggest a disconnect between students’

understanding of the importance of disaster preparedness and emergency responses to natural

disasters in higher learning institutional settings (Farazmand, 2007; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). A

recent report by FEMA (2011) highlighted the lack of understanding among educational

leadership and an inability to implement disaster response plans (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). When

the leadership of higher learning institutions lacks the fundamental knowledge required to keep

students safe during a natural disaster, the expectation and knowledge of students regarding

appropriate policies is also lacking (Clarke, 2013; Conchie et al., 2012; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013).

However, through transformational leadership, the disconnect inherent between the top-down

communication approach promoted by leaders of higher education institutions and the bottom-up

approach of emergency management teams may be rectified.

Transformational leadership involves four major components for effective leadership and

communication: individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation,

and idealized influence (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2011). Individualized

consideration is the degree to which leaders pay attention to the needs of followers and provide a

supportive environment (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2011). Individualized

consideration helps create intrinsic motivation and a call for development within the followers

(Bass, 1998; Northouse, 2011).

42
 For the purposes of this study, individualized consideration is the higher education

institutional leaderships’ ability to articulate the proper concern for student safety in preplanning

and response during a natural disaster. Furthermore, individualized a consideration is the degree

to which administration attends to the individual needs and listens to the students during

preplanning for natural disasters (Clarke, 2013; Chun, 2008).

In order to effectively engage students in the preplanning efforts for disaster preparedness

and emergency response, higher education institutional leadership should provide intellectual

stimulation for students (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). From an emergency management standpoint,

intellectual stimulation describes the way in which administrators encourage new and innovative

ideas from students regarding emergency preparedness efforts. By engaging students during the

preplanning and preparedness phases of disaster response, higher educational leadership

validates the students’ voices and concerns (Conchie et al., 2012; Chun, 2008; Kapucu & Khosa,

2013). The validation of students’ opinions increases student awareness of the importance of

disaster preparedness and emergency response (Hill & Finster, 2013). However, finding the

means to motivate student engagement in the preplanning process is not an easy task.

Transformational leadership theory further proffers that through inspirational motivation

(creating a value or emphasis about the message being delivered) and idealized influence (acting

as role models for students); leaders can encourage followers to value the messages being

delivered and to follow the examples of the leaders themselves (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978;

Northouse, 2011). With regard to disaster preparedness and emergency response in the higher

learning institutional setting, leadership is failing to provide both inspirational motivation and

idealized influence (Clarke, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et al.,

2007). By exploring student perceptions of disaster preparedness and emergency response during

43
natural disasters, a better approach for higher educational leadership may be developed in order

to enhance the inspirational motivation in terms of the appeal of the leaders’ message, its

idealized influence, its perceived ethos and the importance of the leaders’ message. Thus, this

study explores student perceptions of disaster preparedness and emergency response during

natural disasters through the lens of transformational leadership.

Student Perceptions

Currently, there exists a gap between policy and practice at higher education institutions

with regard to emergency response plans and natural disaster preparedness (Bishop, 2013;

Clarke, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Watson et al., 2011; Waugh & Streib, 2006). There is a

great deal of information about the process of creating an emergency response plan and the

aspects that need to be involved in the plan (FEMA, 2007; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers et al.,

2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007). However, there is a gap in the knowledge with regards to the

successful communication of emergency preparedness efforts (Bishop, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa,

2013). It is the goal of this study, by examining student perceptions, to provide influential

feedback to University A about their emergency response plans and natural disaster

preparedness. In qualitative studies much of the learning comes from data analysis. This

literature review was aimed at addressing the current practices and gaps in higher education

emergency response planning and natural disaster preparedness. The research further identified

the need to understand students’ perceptions about emergency management procedures.

One significant problem within the development of emergency response plans is the

failure to differentiate between K-12 and higher education institutions (Myers et al., 2010).

Higher education institutions, unlike K-12 institutions, lack a set schedule (Myers et. al, 2010).

In addition, higher education institutions serve a much larger student demographic and lack the

44
defined organizational boundaries that often characterize K-12 institutions. Teachers at K-12

institutions are familiar with one another while those at higher education institutions are

separated into academic silos (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008).

Administrators at higher education institutions are charged with a variety of duties

including the management of academics, budgets, finances, fundraising efforts, and future

planning (Lucas, 2006). The delegation of duties is a requirement for any top leadership position

(Northouse, 2011). Leadership is both a catalyst for and necessary aspect of any emergency

response effort (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013; Waugh & Streib, 2006; Zemsky, 2009). Effective

leadership during a disaster has also been cited as a way to improve safety efforts within an

organizational environment (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013; Flin & Yule, 2004). Kezar and Eckel

(2008) introduced the importance of leadership and the impact it can have on improving the

organizational culture. Emergency management is predicated on a bottom-up response and the

backing of top-level leadership (Hill & Finster, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Lindell, 2013,

2011; Mullins et al., 2011; Smith, 2011). Higher education institutions should encourage

collaboration in mitigation and planning efforts while promoting the value of emergency

preparedness efforts. Understanding students’ perceptions through the theoretical framework of

transformational leadership theory could enhance disaster preparedness and emergency response

plans on higher learning institution campuses during natural disasters.

Summary

Tracking these instances of natural disasters at higher education institutions highlights

some of the pitfalls in current emergency response plans and natural disaster preparedness.

Beyond the scope of the previously mentioned characteristics that accompany higher education

institutions, there are several areas where emergency response plans fall short in terms of

45
leadership and scope. An understanding of these unique aspects of higher education institutions

must be incorporated as part of the planning process within emergency management.

First, the shared governance of higher education institutions slows the decision making

process (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). In times of disaster, there must be a clear in-line authority

and hierarchical structure for making decision (Myers et al., 2010). Kezar and Eckel (2008)

pointed out that collaborative efforts usually diminish and fail without a perceived backing by

senior administrators. The change effort must be viewed as an “investment in the academy”

(Zemsky, 2009, p. 216). The involvement of top-down administrators is essential for the change

process (Kezar, & Eckel, 2008). Presidential leadership must define and implement important

strategic objectives (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bishop, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Kempner, 2003).

In addition, Kezar and Eckel (2008) pointed out the importance of presidential leadership in

clarifying the change process. It becomes clear, as indicated by Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-

McGavin (2006), that “leadership is a cultural construct” (p. 133). As MacTaggart (2007)

pointed out, “long-lasting change comes from leaders that inspire” (p. 92). The ability of a leader

to utilize influencing skills, a valuable benefit of transformational leadership, is essential during

a disaster situation (Klann, 2003). Using transformational leadership as a framework for

developing a culture of natural disaster and emergency preparedness may allow administrators a

better understanding of the needs of individual students, encourage innovation, place an

emphasis on the importance of emergency preparedness and signal that campus leaders care

about students.

46
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Natural disasters have been responsible for numerous college students’ deaths in the last

ten years (Mitroff et al., 2006). It is important that students have a conceptual understanding of

university policies and procedures for emergency response and disaster management (Zdziarski

et al., 2007). Disaster management and emergency response plans that are communicated

effectively have the capacity to promote student safety (Clarke, 2013; Rollo & Zdziarski, 2007).

Through a qualitative case study methodology and transformational leadership theory, this study

explores student perceptions of a higher learning institution’s efforts and abilities to

communicate its natural disaster preparedness plan.

By understanding students’ perceptions of the natural disaster and emergency response

efforts at a higher education institution, leadership has the capacity to assess the quality of

current procedures while making plans for future improvements. Emergency management

creates a paradox for higher education institutions in that emergency planning requires a great

deal of organization, communication and coordination of both resources and individuals (Lindell,

2013; Smith, 2011). In addition, most disasters require instantaneous action: “Disasters will

inevitably produce calls for responsiveness, but an effective response is unlikely to happen

without collaboration” (Waugh & Streib, 2006, p. 137). To gain a thorough understanding of the

main focus of this study—students’ perceptions of natural disaster response at a higher learning

institution—several steps were taken as part of the data-gathering process. The major steps are

outlined and discussed below.

47
 Case Study Research

This study employed a case study qualitative design. As described by Johnson and

Christensen (2008), qualitative research is the process of collecting “nonnumeric data such as

words and pictures” (p. 388). The main purpose of this type of research is to explore a

phenomenon through a theoretical lens and construct explanations rooted in the analysis of

collected observations (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). Researchers utilizing this type of

methodology expect to gather rich data about a desired phenomenon through observations of and

interviews from a distinct sample (Richard, Singer, Willett, & Light, 2009). Johnson and

Christensen (2009) defined a case as a "bounded system" often used in qualitative research (p.

406). A case can be an “object or entity with a clear identity but can also include an event,

activity or a process” (Johnson & Christensen, 2009, p. 407).

Yin (2009) indicated that the more a research question tries to explain “how or why a

social phenomenon works, the more the case study method will be relevant” (Yin, 2009, p. 9). In

addition, Yin (2009) pointed out that, the more the research question attempts to understand a

social phenomenon in its entirety, the more a case study becomes the apparent methodological

choice. A case study can be useful when helping the researcher understand “a real-life

phenomenon in depth,” and can offer additional insight about “encompassed contextual

conditions that are believed to be highly pertinent to the phenomenon of study” (Yin, 2009, p.

18).

Sample

Initially, the researcher intended to conduct this survey across multiple campuses, but

access was limited despite extensive efforts. Therefore, the study was reduced at one higher

learning institution in California (University A). University A adheres to many of the guidelines

48
set forth by FEMA regarding higher education institutional preparedness, including internet

alerts, preplanning procedures, and incoming student education (FEMA, 2007; Kapucu & Khosa,

2013). University A is a medium-sized, public research institution in Southern California. The

institution was one of ten schools that are members of the University of California system, which

allows students that qualify to easily transfer in from any community college in the state of

California. Geographically, California sits on the San Andreas Fault and is very susceptible to

earthquakes. The institution used for the study maintains an extensive emergency service website

outlining the emergency response procedures at University A. There were resources for students,

faculty, staff, management and parents, as well as contact information for anyone with questions.

Specifically, the institution outlined the following response procedures: The emergency response

page included a great deal of information with regards to the appropriate procedures at the

institution. There were links to health and safety information as well as access to a flip chart to

assist in the mitigation process. Emergency contact numbers were listed as well as an alternative

outline in Spanish. The sidebar menu also had links to various emergency situations, including

human (shooter, bomb threat, crime in progress), natural (earthquake, tsunami, power outage)

and facility (building evacuation, chemical incident, and radioactive incident) disasters. The

sidebar on the website also included links to the campus emergency operations plan (EOP), the

emergency operations center (EOC) and emergency planning links. The emergency alert system

in use was predicated on the use of cellular devices and campus email, and it claimed to allow

university officials to contact every enrolled student during an emergency.

At the beginning of the study, it was evident that University A had done an excellent job

of outlining and planning for an emergency. Mitigation efforts included an informational flip

chart and a building-specific handout with information such as fire extinguisher locations and

49
evacuation plans. Each campus department also broke down action plans, and key department

safety representatives (DSR) were listed on this site. Anyone who visited the website was also

encouraged to follow links for a personal emergency supplies checklist and additional emergency

training activities.

Emergency contact numbers were included on the website such as campus police, radio

station, local fire department, county health and human services, as well as a toll free campus

emergency information line. Students were urged to develop a personal and family

communication plan before an emergency. The development of this plan urged students, faculty

and staff to enter emergency contact and information numbers into their cellular devices,

designate a central contact, keep a car charger on hand in case of power outages, and utilize the

emergency campus communication system via text messaging and email.

The EOC was indicated as the area for central command and control that is responsible

for following emergency management procedures while maintaining the safety of the

community. It was outlined as a coordinated area of key campus and emergency response

personnel. In addition, a campus map outlining the location of the EOC was available as a

resource.

Computer-based response tools were also readily utilized. A computer software tool had

been implemented throughout the university as a way to help departments quickly resume the

University’s mission after an unexpected emergency. The software helped the institution outline

critical functions, information and strategies, and action items that can be distributed after a

disrupting event. The website provided a printable document that outlined departmental and

individual emergency supplies as well as the necessary characteristics that are needed for the

development of a personal emergency response plan. Individuals were encouraged to designate a

50
family meeting place and to learn simple first aid techniques that could assist in the onset of a

disaster. University A made relevant information available to the student body. It appeared to

meet the expectations of federal and state governments and the literature on emergency

management.

Recruitment of Students for the Study

The participants for this study were recruited through purposeful sampling via various

technological and social media methods that included email, Craigslist and Facebook. Each

student selected needed to be attending a higher education institution (in this case, University A)

and fall demographically between the ages of 18-24. The researcher deemed these characteristics

as necessary demographics when characterizing someone as a traditional college student (Dugan

& Komives, 2010; Wyatt, 2011).

By incorporating a variety of avenues for attracting participants to the study, the

researcher intended to draw students representing many aspects of the student population. For

the purpose of protecting the integrity of the institution, the university in the study was described

through demographic information (such as type of institution, size and location) but never

identified by name. Informed consent was obtained through an electronic signature at the

beginning of the survey (see Appendix B). The open-ended style survey (see Appendix A) was

delivered via an online survey design tool; Qualtrics, while the interviews (see Appendix A)

were conducted in-person. Qualtrics is a tool provided by the College of Education at Florida

State University at no additional cost to students in the College and has been used in over 200

research studies.

To maintain the privacy and confidentiality of the participants, all data obtained from

participants were kept confidential. In addition, all survey and interview results were held in

51
confidence and no one other than the primary investigator had access to the raw data. The data

collected were stored in the HIPPA-compliant, Qualtrics-secure database until the primary

investigator elects to delete the data after the study is complete. Current collegiate students have

a familiarity with technology unlike previous generations; the researcher understood students’

technological familiarity and used this understanding to deliver an online survey as well as in-

person interviews in hopes of determining their perceptions of emergency response plans at a

select higher education institution on the West Coast.

Having gathered data through online surveys, it is this researcher’s assumption that each

student answered the questions freely and honestly. The in-person interviews followed a very

similar protocol with regards to safety efforts and were intended to offer an additional way to

gain understanding of other students’ perceptions in addition to the online survey. Only

demographic features including age, gender, and years on campus identified each student who

participated in the survey and interview. Both the survey and interview followed identical

questions (See Appendix A) but utilized different interview formats (online and in-person).

Students were never identified by name. By not reporting students’ names, it was intended that

the students would feel more comfortable speaking their minds without the fear of institutional

repercussions.

Data Collection Procedures

Both the survey and interview processes were essential because gathering feedback from

students was an integral part of this study. The sample was purposeful as I interviewed various

students from a higher education institution (University A) in Southern California. I chose this

institution because of college location, campus design, and student demographic and potential for

a natural disaster. This university was located near the coast and has a very open campus design.

52
In addition, the researcher had access to the student population through a staff member at the

university. Both Florida State University and the university where the research was conducted

(see Appendix D) granted the appropriate Institutional Research Board (IRB) approvals.

A professional contact working at University A helped me gain access to the desired

student population. Of the 185 students I was able to contact by email in the spring of 2014 at

University A, 42 responded (23% response rate). Social media (Craigslist and Facebook) were

also employed in the spring of 2014 in hopes of improving the response rate. However, social

media attempts (Facebook and Craigslist) were unsuccessful in attracting new participants for the

survey. As a result all the responses for the online survey were only from those students

contacted via email at University A.

Upon the completion of the online survey, 27 in-person interviews (not follow ups with

people previously surveyed) that ranged from 10-35 minutes in length were also conducted in the

spring of 2014. It should be clear and stressed again that these students did not participate in the

online survey. Using purposeful sampling methods, students from the original survey

respondents were asked to communicate through email, Facebook and Craigslist to their friends

about participating in a face-to-face interview. Additional students were approached on campus

through purposeful sampling, in hopes of gaining additional insight into students’ understanding

of natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts at University A. Each student interviewed

was informed that the survey was for the purpose of the researcher’s dissertation toward the

completion of a doctoral degree. The structures of these interviews were similar to the open-

ended survey of the online survey but varied in delivery format (in-person). Laddering was

utilized as a frame of reference when asking each student questions during the in-person

interview. To ensure students’ communicated all of their thoughts regarding natural disasters and

53
emergency preparedness, the researcher asked, “Is there anything else?” at the end of each

student response. Before the interview, students were informed about the approach and the

ideologies behind the technique. They were informed that the question “Is there anything else?”

is in no way a reflection of their answer but merely a qualitative research technique. Each

interview was scheduled during the spring semester; in a library setting that was secluded from

outside distractions. In addition, this setting was secluded to keep the subjects from following

any visual distractions.

This study focused on understanding students’ perceptions of disaster management and

emergency preparedness efforts at a higher education institution. In order to determine how

transformational leadership could be used to impact the disaster management and emergency

preparedness efforts at a higher education institution, the researcher developed survey and

interview questions that would highlight transformational leadership successes or failures within

a higher education institution for disaster management and emergency preparedness.

Transformational leadership is a type of leadership that increases “collective interest among the

organization’s members and helps them to achieve their collective goals” through the use of

individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized

influence (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978; García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-

Gutiérrez, 2012, p. 1041; Northouse, 2011). Survey and interview questions were developed to

explore the individualized consideration by asking participants to discuss their opinions about the

degree to which administrator’s pay attention to students’ needs with regards to natural disaster

and emergency preparedness efforts (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2011). For example,

asking students about their perceptions of the administrations’ ability to engage and motivate

54
students to the importance of preplanning procedures and emergency response explored

intellectual stimulation.

Based on a review of the literature, it was determined that higher education leadership in

many institution is lacking in the areas of inspirational motivation and idealized influence with

regard to communicating disaster preparedness plans and emergency response procedures to

students (Bishop, 2013; Burns, 1978; Clarke, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Northouse, 2011).

Given the consistent lack of inspirational motivation and idealized influence, characteristics

inherent in transformational leadership, both the survey and interview questions (See Appendix

A) were developed to explore students’ thoughts on how higher learning administration could

engage, connect and inspire more concern for students’ well-being and safety during natural

disaster events. In order to further understand the impact of individualized consideration and

idealized influence, students were asked how higher learning administration could further set an

example of appropriate response behaviors.

Another purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of students’ perceptions

about disaster response and emergency preparedness efforts at their higher education institution.

The survey and interview were developed with that overarching concept in mind. The

researcher’s expectations were multifaceted; the goal was to understand not only the perceptions

of the current student population, but also their specific knowledge base. Emergency response

plans predicated that those within the organization knew what to do, where to go, and how to

find and utilize the resources available to them during a disaster (Smith, 2011; Waugh & Streib,

2006). Research suggests that this information should be understood before the onset of a

disaster (Lindell, 2013; Smith, 2011). A lack of communication and information sharing can be

problematic for the response and recovery efforts of an organization (Clarke, 2013; Fillmore et

55
al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). The survey and interview questions were aimed at

determining the current body of knowledge pertaining to natural disaster and emergency

preparedness at a specific higher education institution.

The geographic location of the institution was important when developing the survey and

interview questions. Natural disasters are geographically specific, and the researcher took that

specificity into consideration when formulating the survey. For example, the institution for this

study was located on the San Andreas Fault; so natural disaster questions were geared around the

probability of an earthquake or tsunami. A school located on the Gulf Coast of Florida should be

prepared for hurricane, flood and tornado events. The researcher also provided open-ended

questions and utilized terminology, such as describe or evaluate, to encourage students to

provide their responses. This effort was intentional to make sure that each participant felt

comfortable and was not overwhelmed by difficult or unfamiliar emergency management

terminology. As mentioned above, to ensure the accuracy and production of sufficient responses,

emergency response professionals reviewed all of the questions beforehand.

It is also essential that evaluation be done through the use of both reliable and valid

instruments (Strachota, 2006). In order to validate the questions, both the survey and interview

questions were sent to and piloted by two emergency management content experts. Both content

experts hold PhD degrees in Emergency Management and currently teach Emergency

Management courses at accredited higher education institutions. A pilot study using the survey

was given to 30 undergraduate students at the study site institution to obtain prior knowledge of

any confusing questions or difficult wording which might limit responses. The pilot was useful

in targeting questions that needed more information and fine-tuning each question to the current

student demographic at higher education institutions.

56
 Research has suggested that online questionnaires provide access to a unique population

that may not feel comfortable speaking about certain issues via face-to-face format, access to a

large number of respondents across geographic boundaries, and can be useful for collecting in-

school data from students (Lefever, Dal & Matthiasdottir, 2007; Wright, 2005). Research also

indicated that one major disadvantage of online questionnaires lies in the question-writing

process (Maria & Bogue, 2006). As mentioned above, to ensure content-focused and relevant

questions, the researcher’s content experts assisted in the development of the survey and

interview questions. These experts helped in a pilot study to ensure that the questions effectively

address the essential areas of emergency management and disaster preparedness within higher

education institutions. Johnson and Christensen (2008) outlined the importance of pilot studies in

validating survey instruments. The content experts who reviewed my survey questions, interview

questions and pilot study helped shape those questions to elicit detailed responses regarding

perceptions of emergency response procedures and preparedness for natural disasters.

As indicated above, the online survey was sent to 185 students at University A. Students

were selected through purposeful sampling. After gaining access to the student body through a

teaching assistant, students were asked to forward the survey to any friends who may have been

interested in emergency management. The survey and interview both had 16 (Appendix A). A

total of 42 students out of 185 surveyed (a 23% response rate) provided usable responses.

Criteria for a usable response included: (a) completion of all survey questions, and (b) an age

range of 18-24. These criteria were employed to ensure uniformity across data analysis while

giving the researcher the best qualitative data possible.

It would have been good to have a better response rate, closer to 30 %; however, several

factors impacted the return rate. Disaster response and emergency preparedness is not considered

57
a popular topic among undergraduate students. As pointed out during the interviews and data

analysis, the majority of the participants did not realize the importance of emergency

management until they were asked they might do in an emergency situation.

There were no incentives provided to students for completing the survey, and it was clear

that students had trouble identifying emergency management as an important topic. The lower

than desired response rate was also the result of a lack of familiarity with the student body at

University A on the part of the researcher. To ensure the integrity of the survey, the researcher

required that all surveys be completed in one sitting its entirety. The semester at University A

was filled with obligations and thoughts of summer, so it may also have been a bad time of year

for a stronger completion rate. To safeguard against a low usable response rate, the researcher

conducted face-to-face interviews with students from University A. As previously mentioned,

there was no difference between the survey and interviews beyond the format (online versus in-

person).

Role of the Researcher

Higher education institutions now participate in a global marketplace where they compete

for funding, recognition, students and research opportunities (Morey, 2004). The shift of higher

education from a public to a private good has also changed the view of students with regards to

their educational institutions. In loco parentis is moving back to the forefront of the duties of

higher education institutions. It is imperative to create a sense of security and safety within the

academies of the twenty-first century. Administrators at higher education institutions should

consider natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts as worthwhile activities.

The characteristics of higher education institutions such as academic silos, lack of

business hours, open campuses, and a transient student population create a significant concern

58
when attempting to plan for an emergency. Natural disaster and emergency preparedness is

reliant on those living within the area impacted by a disaster understanding the resources

available to them and being able to act in a quick yet organized manner. The goal of this study

was to provide a platform for students to share their perceptions and concerns about emergency

response efforts at their school. Case study research involves an in-depth look into a bounded

system with the specific purpose of understanding interrelated elements that occur within that

environment (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). As indicated by Yin (2009), the more one tries to

understand the “how or why behind a social phenomenon, the more a case study becomes

relevant” (p. 9). Natural disaster and emergency response plans are predicated on a flexible, yet

systematic, response (Smith, 2011). Coupled with the organizational characteristics of higher

education institutions and transient student populations, understanding the perceptions about

natural disaster and emergency response plans are imperative to ensure safety (Kapucu & Khosa,

2013; Myers et al., 2010; Zdziarski et al., 2007).

Understanding student perceptions about the natural disaster and emergency response

plans was crucial to the researcher. The researcher experienced an emergency or disaster

situation while earning an undergraduate degree. Feelings that arise during these experiences can

be characterized as “helpless,” “uneasy” and “uncertain of appropriate procedures.” While this

experience was beneficial as a motivating factor in the research, it must be identified only to

guard against possible bias. By recognizing and understanding the capacity for possible bias

before the research was conducted, the interviewer safeguarded against bias. In addition notes,

thoughts and reflections were compiled during the interview process. For added accuracy,

interviews were taped and transcribing further ensuring that each response was recorded word-

for-word and not summarized.

59
 Thoughts and possible biases were verbalized and transcribed in the field notes. In

addition, a five-minute break was taken between each interview so that the researcher could

establish a neutral frame of mind. As pointed out by Johnson and Christensen (2008),

understanding bias and taking notes on possible biases helps prevent these thoughts from

impacting the qualitative data.

During the research process, there was some difficulty gaining access to the

student population. With the help of a university faculty member, the researcher was able to send

the online survey to 185 students, 42 of whom completed it. In addition, the researcher was

allowed to give a five-minute presentation during two different classes in hopes of gaining more

participants. With the help of a university faculty member and the characterization of the

researcher as a “doctoral student,” the researcher was able to gain 27 face-to-face interviews. The

researcher focused on uncovering meaning from the responses and codes about the natural

disaster and emergency preparedness at University A. By focusing on maintaining the student

narrative, the researcher was able to gain insight into those students’ perceptions, rather than

summarizing the findings. As previously mentioned all of the interviews ranged from 10 to 35

minutes. It appears that the length of the interviews was linked to the ability of the participant to

identify with the researcher, the familiarity of the environment and their interest with the

research topic. It became apparent that some of the participants felt much more open and

comfortable than others. Some of the participants seemed guarded and insecure about their

answers. The majority of the participants were very open to the ladder questioning technique,

which was useful in gathering additional information about natural disaster and emergency

response procedures at University A.

60
 Data Analysis Procedures

At the conclusion of the interviews, both the interviews and survey results were

transcribed, coded and organized into a frequency matrix. The transcripts created from these

interviews were listened to and reviewed several times to ensure accuracy within the data. Once

transcribed, each interview was read several times in the hopes of deepening the researcher's

contextual understanding. The researcher then went through both the transcripts and survey

responses to formalize codes and create themes and meaning from the data. Specific codes were

formed through clustering, and the researcher made sure to list each master code before moving

to the clustering process. Throughout the analysis, twelve major themes emerged with regards to

students’ perceptions of natural disaster and emergency response procedures at their school: (a)

Definition of Standard Public Safety Officials, (b) Lack of Knowledge, (c) Self-Preservation and

Individual Safety Responses, (d) Campus Administration and Officials, (e) Campus Information,

(f) Eminent Threats, (g) Safety/Feelings of Security, (h) Perceived Safety Efforts, (I) Lack of

Interest in Procedures, (j) Modern Technology as a Way to Disseminate Information, (k)

Locations, (l) Desire to Know.

Each of the 140 codes was grouped into one of the 12 themes in order to create meaning

from the data. The following paragraphs summarize the overarching themes and provide a

complete list of codes that fall under each theme. All of the codes were examined for similarities

and overlapping functions within regards to emergency response procedures.

Bracketing was used as a way to suspend judgment about the qualitative data. Bracketing

allows the researcher to acknowledge his or her personal ideologies (Bevan, 2014). In this form

of thinking, perceptions are set aside and the phenomenon are “revisited, freshly, naively and in a

wide open sense” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 33). After the reduction was used, during which each

61
experience was examined in isolation, “in and for itself” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 34). Reduction is

essentially due to the way it encourages the researcher to listen “with a conscious and deliberate

intention of opening ourselves up to phenomena as phenomena in their own right with their own

contextual meanings” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 92).

By using this method, each individual was “brought into focus as the necessary force for

explicating experience and deriving knowledge” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 48). Reduction also

helped ensure the researcher refrained from using personal “knowledge, theory or beliefs” and

“became a perpetual beginner” (Bevan, 2014, p. 138) in (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). The

transcriptions for both the interviews and survey were examined line-by-line through the

inductive process of reduction. Each line was evaluated for all units of meaning.

The process of reflection, self-dialogue and consideration of one’s point of view helps to

“significantly reduce the influence of preconceived thoughts, judgments and bias” (Moustakas,

1994, p. 90). The researcher identified a theme as saturated when no new meaning could be

derived from the data.

Coding Process

During the coding process, the researcher used a Microsoft Word document to transcribe

the 26 in-person interviews and the 41 online useable surveys. One of the students from the

interview had to leave early and was unable to complete the survey. As a result she was not used

in the coding process. In addition, one of the students that responded to the survey was outside of

the age of 18-24 and not used in the coding process. The transcripts provided the researcher with

a great deal of rich data. Underlining phrases and numbering frequencies of individual words and

phrases helped with the coding process. The researcher transcribed all interviews and surveys

verbatim from the participants in order to preserve the quality of original qualitative data.

62
 In hopes of gaining a deeper, contextual understanding of the perceptions of students, the

researcher assigned each code a number. This process enabled the researcher to track the

frequency and occurrences of specific terminology throughout the analysis process. For example,

“police and campus security” was an emergent code, and was labeled as "PCS". The transcripts

were reviewed several times for accuracy within the coding process.

Each code was then listed in a matrix with an assigned number, label and frequency of

occurrence. The matrix was then examined to reveal emerging themes and trends. These

meanings should not be considered absolute; however, they are a reflection of the traditional

college student population, ages 18-24, within one higher education institution. At the conclusion

of the coding process, there were 140 codes that ranged from frequencies of 124 to 2. Each code

was then grouped into the major themes that will be discussed later in the chapter. Below is an

example of the codes and the coding schema (see full table in Appendix C).

Table 1 Coding Schema

Phrase Code Frequency

1. Police/Campus Security PCS 103

2. I Don’t Know What To Do IDKW 124

3. Get Under Desk GUD 51

4. Fire Department/Fire Fighter FD/FF 25

5. Campus Administration CA 30

After the coding process was completed, the researcher went over the documents again to

ensure validity. Once this process was finished, the researcher began to examine brackets for

themes. As a result of reduction, 12 themes emerged from the data (listed above). Through the

63
use of reduction, the researcher attempted to remain true to the descriptions of students’

perceptions without the incorporation of personal bias or prejudices (Bevan, 2014). The

breakdown of which codes fit into each theme can be viewed in the results section.

Reliability Measures

To increase reliability, the study incorporated data triangulation, member checking and

pattern matching. Data triangulation is the process of using multiple data collection, sources and

analysis to create an increased validity (Hale, 2011). Johnson and Christensen (2008) referred to

data triangulation as a method in which researchers “seek convergence and corroboration of

results from different methods of studying the same phenomenon” (p. 451). Research also

indicated the ability of data triangulation to help the researcher explain both “overlapping and

different facets of a phenomenon” (Johnson & Christensen, 2008, p. 451).

Member checking is a procedure in which researchers ask participants to review

transcripts of their own interviews for accuracy and meaning (Hale, 2011). Participants in from

the surveys and interviews were asked to review their answers upon completion. Pattern

matching is a process of matching perceived outcomes against conclusions identified. Each

pattern matched increases the reliability of the study (Hale, 2011). This strategy allows the

researcher to make several predictions about the study. If the predictions do occur, this strategy

offers supportive evidence and increases validity (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). By comparing

the perceptions of students gathered from the surveys and interviews, as the researcher, I

returned to the emergency management plans at University A to identify the specific

characteristics used to effectively disseminate information. Further findings regarding pattern

checking are highlighted in the findings of this study.

64
 Member checking provided the researcher with an ongoing dialogue about the emerging

theories. It also gave the researcher a chance to write down thoughts about the research process

and elaborate on ideas about the data and coded categories. Memos helped direct me towards

new sources of data and shape ideas about further developing data (Johnson & Christensen,

2008). This process was completed as I reviewed themes generated in the data analysis process.

There were a variety of codes and themes that emerged from the data, and it was necessary to

keep an ongoing dialog going using memos and patterns to evaluate the data.

Credibility Measures

To maintain validity and credibility throughout the analysis procedures, all transcripts

from the surveys and interviews were reviewed several times by the researcher. Data

triangulation (between surveys and interviews) and member checking were utilized throughout

the data analysis procedures. As pointed out by Hale (2011), using various methods of collecting

data helps improve the quality of the raw data. By using a survey as well as in-person interviews,

the researcher was able to converse and collaborate results from different methods of examining

the same phenomenon (Johnson & Christensen, 2008).

During the actual interview process, member checking was identified as a valid way to

improve the credibility of the researcher study. Each individual was asked to review his or her

survey and interview (as well as field notes) for accuracy and consistency. Memo writing was

another credibility tool incorporated by the researcher. Memos were written as the researcher

moved between the transcriptions and recordings of the interviews.

Summary

Case study research was the best process to further understand student perceptions of

emergency response plans and natural disaster preparedness at a medium-sized, public higher

65
education institution in Southern California. Utilizing Qualtrics, online surveys were sent

through email to students at a higher education institution in Southern California. In addition,

participants were gained through purposeful and snowballing for face-to-face interviews lasting

between 10-35 minutes in length. The researcher, to ensure valid and accurate codes, performed

the coding process by hand. These codes were examined to produce themes, which were

essential in deriving meaning from the qualitative data.

It was important to understand the emergency planning process at higher education

institutions. As Smith (2011) indicated, the pre-disaster planning process can greatly limit the

impact of natural disasters on communities. Beyond merely putting a plan in place, it is essential

to continue to develop that plan to meet the unique characteristics of the local community

(Bishop, 2013; Lindell, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011). Each higher education

institution offers a unique set of challenges that are unlike any other type of emergency

management system. The purpose of this study was to understand students’ perceptions of

natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts at a higher education institution.

66
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter describes the results and themes that were identified with regards to

students’ perceptions of natural disaster and emergency preparedness at University A. All of the

data were gathered from students at a higher education institution in California. The themes that

emerged from this research provide an overview of the students’ perceptions of University A’s

disaster preparedness and emergency response efforts. The main focus this chapter is to review

analysis of student perceptions about disaster preparedness and emergency response during

natural disasters at a higher learning institution, University A.

The raw data gathered through in-person interviews and online survey were transcribed

with accuracy in the exact words of the sample population. The researcher placed a great deal of

emphasis on providing the terminology and semantics as presented in each interview. By paying

close attention to the word choice and responses of each student, the researcher was able to

provide insight into student perceptions and provide a summary of overall findings.

Knowledge from Survey and Interview Questions

. The first question in both the survey and the interview was strictly demographic. The

number of years at University A was included to determine familiarity with emergency response

procedures. Put another way, it would not be useful to survey and interview only students new to

the campus or only seniors who had been on campus for some time. During the course of

analysis, no specific relationship between grade level and familiarity with emergency

preparedness on campus was identified. This measure was still beneficial as it did provide the

researcher a sense of the understanding of the participants and showed a variety across multiple

grade levels in both the survey and interview.

67
 Age was a valuable demographic for both the survey and the interviews for several

reasons: (a) to make sure that the participants met the age requirement for traditional college

students (18-24), and (b) to ensure that the students lived, or at least participated, in the campus

community. While it is not a definite indicator, those students who fall within the age range of a

traditional college student were hypothesized to significantly participate and understand the

cultural norms at that institution.

As the survey and interview progressed beyond basic demographics, the survey questions

focused on transformational leadership. Understanding age in both the interview and survey was

important to identify the students’ characterization as a traditional college student (which falls

between the ages of 18-24). The sole participant who listed their age at above 40 (in the survey)

was discarded from the final coding process because they did not meet the guidelines of this

study.

Table 2 Survey and Interview Demographics

Survey Interview

Demographics Demographics

Male 13 10

Female 29 16

1 year 20 18

2 years 16 6

3 or more years 6 7

18-24 41 26

25-29 0 0

40 and above 1 0

68
 It was essential to have a unique understanding about how students in both the survey and

interviews define certain terminology in order to gauge the individualized responses from

students. Students in were asked to describe the term emergency preparedness. Results from

both the survey and interviews were combined in the analysis. Emergency preparedness was

typically associated with some type of action. Students defined emergency preparedness in

multiple ways: “Performing the necessary tasks to help yourself and others out of dangerous

situations”; “Being ready for a time when something tragic happens and being able to do

something effective about it”; “I think about the necessary steps an individual needs to take when

in an emergency situation”; “A system that directs people to act in a certain way to avoid

injuries/death in the event a natural, or human disaster occurs”; and “Being prepared and able to

adapt and react in the event of an emergency.”

In addition, emergencies were often seen as situations that lack warning and clarity: “In

order to quickly and rapidly conduct emergency actions in advance to prepare and organize

emergency support”; “Being prepared for an emergency at all times”; and “How ready one is for

an unexpected emergency.”

Participants from both survey and interviews were asked to evaluate the safety on campus

with regards to natural disaster and emergency preparedness. This question, directly connected to

both intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation as categories in transformational

leadership, revealed a lack of familiarity with and understanding of natural disaster and

emergency preparedness procedures. Student responses in both the survey and interviews

highlighted this disconnect:

“I don't know how prepared they are, but I assume they are prepared”; “I can recall a time

when I was told specifically what to do in an emergency situation”; and, “I have never truly

69
reviewed my campus' disaster and emergency plan. I am unaware of the evacuation plans.

Actually, I do not very know about my campus with regards to natural disaster and emergency

preparedness.”

Students felt a sense of trust in their institution but mentioned a lack of communication

between themselves and the school with regards to natural disaster and emergency preparedness.

This lack of communication further highlighted the effectiveness of the institutional leadership in

the transformational leadership component of idealized influence but failure to provide both

intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation.

Students’ comments highlight these areas as follows: “There are probably measures in

place, but they haven't been communicated well to students”; and “I believe my campus is pretty

prepared, but to my knowledge I'm not exactly sure. In the case of an emergency, I see the school

itself being prepared. However, I do not believe the students are well enough informed or

prepared for an emergency or natural disaster.”

In addition students commented: “I would say that our school has decent emergency

precautions put in place. But, they have not communicated them to the student body well

enough”; and “I have very little knowledge of our school's exact emergency directions however,

I do believe that in the event of a real disaster, my nearest teacher/authority has been provided

with the knowledge to direct me to safety.”

In an attempt to better understand student perceptions, participants were asked to describe

everything they knew about the natural disaster and emergency response efforts at University A.

This question revealed that students’ understanding of the efforts at their school ranged from a

limited to shallow comprehension, again highlighting the institution’s need to provide

intellectual stimulation efforts. Students in both the surveys and interviews felt that they

70
understood the efforts typically described procedures that were merely on the surface of the

preparedness efforts at their school: “I have no idea about the natural disaster response efforts at

my school. To be honest, I don't really know about them here”; “I'm sure there are but I've never

really looked into it”; “Sometimes I will notice a sign up around the school about natural

disasters or emergency response, and they most likely offer a class or something on it, but

nothing that I've personally sought after”; “I know where the emergency fire lanes and routes are

closest to all of my classes. I also know that the school provides very good security and

professors that in some cases put students before themselves”; “I do know the school was not

prepared for the flooding so we went without a classroom for a week”; and, “I do not know any

natural disaster at my school.”

In order to review inspiration motivation and idealized influence, students were asked to

express the degree to which University A discussed an emergency response plan with them and

what they would like to know about the emergency response plan. These questions point to the

fact that students have not been given direction with regards to the emergency response plan at

their school. The majority of the students in the surveys and interviews were curious about where

to go, whom to contact, and requested periodic drills to practice the procedures: “I would like to

know what to do if a disaster ever did occur and what pre-cautions I should take”; “I don't think

campus talk about an emergency response plan to me”; “I want to know what I should do if the

natural disasters happen”; “No, no response plan has been shared with me”; “I would like to

know certain plans of where to go in case of certain emergencies. Where not to go. How

accessible my car is”; “No they haven't. I would sort of like to know what we were supposed to

do (besides run) if some sort of natural disaster were to occur while we were on campus”; and,

71
“No. I'd like to see an online list of natural disasters that you could click on and see their plans

and guidelines and maybe even maps.”

Students were asked to define the term disaster response team and identify members of

the team at University A as well as their responsibilities. It became clear that students in the

survey and interviews were able to identify the roles of a disaster response team and their duties

before, during and after an emergency. This ability suggests a solid individualized consideration

and moderate intellectual stimulation. But it was difficult for the participants to name members

of the response team. If they were able to name a member, they looked towards emergency

responders, campus security, and police as members of the disaster response team: “A group of

people prepared to respond to a natural disaster and help the control chaos within the school and

provide medical attention”; “A disaster response team.” There is still a great opportunity for

improvement in transformational leadership in the areas of both intellectual stimulation and

individualized consideration.

When asked to identify resources available at University A to ensure safety during a

disaster students in from both the survey and interviews ranged from having no idea about the

resources available to indicating various signs, evacuation routes, supplies, food, and staff

officials. The lack of understanding and knowledge despite the prevalence of individualized

consideration may be a direct reflection of the lack of intellectual stimulation and inspirational

motivation, two very essential aspects of transformational leadership, on the part of

administration. The school website and local police were also indicated as possible alternatives

for gathering information during an emergency: “The emergency situation brochure details what

to do in each case, however, I don't know of any buildings I should seek shelter in. Probably the

closest one to me and away from windows”; “I believe we can call 9-1-1, and I have seen a few

72
emergency phone poles around the campus, which I do believe we can go to if necessary”; “I am

sure there is available information on the school website, and I can go in and talk to someone in

the school administration building”; and, “Our teachers can help us.”

Identifying the steps to take if a natural disaster (earthquake) were to occur while on

campus lacked a clear understanding of response procedures. Students in the survey and

interviews felt that the best way to protect themselves during a disaster was to hide under a desk,

get out of the building or get to an enclosed basement. Self-preservation, or individualized

consideration, was clear, and a person in a leadership position was often mentioned as a one who

could offer valuable direction to students. These tendencies among respondents suggest that

idealized influence may be enhanced with more effort put toward inspirational motivation and

intellectual stimulation: “Go under the desk and put my hands over my head”; “Take cover

during the earthquake under a desk or in an area where nothing can fall on you. Make your way

outside to an open area afterwards”; “Go to the most open space you can think of, stay there and

wait until someone notifies you that it is okay to enter the building again”; and, “Everyone duck

under their seats, remain there for at least a minute after the earthquake, then everyone should get

up and make sure the teacher knows they're okay, and depending on how severe the earthquake

is we should evacuate to just in case the building would collapse on us.”

To engage students’ sense of individualized consideration and desire for intellectual

stimulation, the participants in the survey and interviews were asked to express the changes (if

any) they would want to see implemented in the response plan. The best way to communicate

these changes to the student population was also asked. Students at University A felt the need for

more communication between the administration and the students with regards to the emergency

preparedness initiatives at their school. Students felt that lectures and informative programs

73
should be put in place along with school emails regarding response plan details: “My campus

needs a program that explains about emergency situation. Then students can know what they

should do”; “Having it is more interactive so that people are more likely to read and understand

what they are supposed to do. Also having an introduction to it or on campus events would make

others more likely to be informed”; “I think there should be step-by-step instructions on what to

do and put somewhere in the classroom that is visible for everyone”; and “I would probably want

the campus to make their students more aware of what is going on, through email or text.”

When faced with identifying the location of the Emergency Operations Center on

campus, it became clear that an overwhelming number of participants in the survey and the

interviews had no idea of the location of the emergency operations center on campus. This

knowledge is vital to any recovery effort and often acts as the locus information dissemination

during an emergency. This lack of effectively utilizing transformational leadership theory and

specifically individualized consideration can cost students’ their lives: “No, but maybe in the

Student Services building”; “I honestly have no clue, but I'm guessing it would be a part of the

security office”; “I didn't know we had one but I am assuming it is by the track”; and, “No I

cannot identify the location of Emergency Operations, but if I wanted to find it I would go to the

front desk of student services and ask them where it is and who is in charge of it.”

Participants in the study were asked the ways in which they check the local weather

conditions. Encouraging students to account for their own abilities enhances their individualized

consideration and intellectual stimulation. Students and the university both placed a great deal of

emphasis on providing information online and through the Internet. Students in the survey and

interviews identified the university website, television, and cellular devices as the main sources

of gathering information about weather conditions: “Online, or on the television”; “Use Internet

74
news, or weather App on the phone”; “The weather app on my phone or the news”; “Phone and

computer”; “My phone and the Internet”; and, “On the weather app on your phone or on the

Weather Channel.”

There was a lack of intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation as students

wavered when asked about ways of gaining information about the university. Those who in the

survey and interviews were clear about where to find pertinent information mentioned the school

website, email alerts, student services, and campus officials in leadership positions: “You could

probably gain access to this information by asking student services at the front office”; “Online

on the school website”; “I’d ask somebody superior to me, for example, my advisor”; “Emails

and text messages”; and, “I actually don't know.”

Identifying the appropriate safety representatives at University A and their roles during

an emergency helps establish idealized influence. Firefighters, police, security and administrators

were identified throughout the survey and interviews as possible safety representatives across

campus. Communication was indicated as a key component of the job of a safety representative;

indicating the capacity transformational leadership, specifically for individualized consideration,

intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation. In addition, organization was a key aspect

of this position. Students also felt that leadership was a key component for anyone who held one

of these positions: “They can be leaders to lead students to safety retreat because they know

more emergency knowledge than normal students”; “I don't know of one”; and, their role is not

to keep the place safe but to patrol and make sure nobody is looking suspicious. They are there to

keep an eye on the situation and be the communication between us and police for example in

serious cases.”

75
 The survey and interviews both explored the communication process, including the best

way to communicate important information to students at University A. Asking students

opinions on the best method connects students to the response procedures through individualized

consideration, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation. The majority of the

participants identified the campus e-mail and text alert system as the best way to communicate

valuable information. Students were identified to have a dependence on their cellular devices,

most continuously checking text messages and emails. Campus-wide drills, social media and in-

class lectures were also mentioned as relevant ways to communicate valuable information:

“Have a drill at school mandatory for all classes to attend and listen to, email all teachers that

their students must participate”; “I think the most successful way to communicate important

information to the student population is through text message. You constantly have student on

their cell phones and everybody around always has their phone”; “I feel as if email is the easiest

way for all accounts, all people have Internet access and it is free to send”; and, “there should be

a social media platform just for the college or school you go to. And a place where students can

post classes that are canceled and teachers can post and the school can post in an emergency.”

Students will be able to receive information via smart phone notifications easily and it’s readily

available.

Major Themes

Major Theme 1: Standard Public Safety Officials

The first theme to emerge was student identification of standard public safety officials.

The following codes were organized into the theme: police/campus security, fire department/fire

fighter, paramedics/EMT, 911, first aid office, student leaders, and Red Cross. The responses

suggested that police and campus security were identified as the primary campus officials

76
available before, during and after an emergency. One student commented that, “I would think

about campus police” during a disaster. Other participants indicated, “police patrolling the

campus” as something that makes them feel safe. The fire department was also listed as an

option to produce information during a disaster, in coordination with paramedics.

It became clear throughout the process that students would typically look to these

individuals for information with regards to natural disaster and emergency preparedness.

Colleges must ensure that the police, fire and paramedics understand the response procedures at

the school and are able to successfully inform students about university procedures. In addition,

these types of response officials should be clearly visible during the response effort to help instill

a sense of safety amongst the students. This theme would indicate that students recognize that

administrators’ could provide transformational leadership elements of idealized influence if there

were more done to engage the students through intellectual stimulation and inspirational

motivation.

Major Theme 2: Lack of Knowledge

The second major theme to develop was a lack of knowledge about what to do if an

emergency impacted campus. It was clear from this limited analysis via surveys and interviews

that the administration at University A was not communicating effectively with students in

regards to disaster preparedness and emergency response. The lack of understanding of the

response protocol for students indicated a gap in transformational leadership qualities of

individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation in regards to disaster preparedness and

emergency response. The codes that contributed to the development of this theme included: don’t

know what to do, didn’t realize how little, wait for instruction, haven’t been given information, I

77
don’t know where, shared, not shared, I don’t feel, I don’t remember, posters, I don’t really

know, I want to know, before school, I know where, and no.

As argued by Smith (2011), disaster response must be a proactive effort as opposed to a

reactive one. Individuals need to know where to go, what to do and who to contact before the

onset of an emergency (Myers et al., 2010). It was apparent that the student body at University A

was unclear about the appropriate steps to take during an emergency. Two student responses

were: ““I don't think campus talk about an emergency response plan to me. I want to know what

should I do if the natural disasters happen”; and, “The interview made me think about the fact

how I don’t know at all what the safety procedures are and where we need to go and who is in

charge of our safety and what is to stop people from coming onto campus.”

The participants understood the need for understanding such procedures.

One student reported, “It definitely made me think a lot more about emergency response. I walk

around campus feeling totally secure and now I know that if there was an emergency situation I

don’t know what to do and that is scary and I feel that a lot of people would feel the same way.”

The code with the one of highest frequencies in the coding matrix was the phrase, “I

don’t know.” Emergency preparedness procedures involve not only the development of protocols

and plans but also the communication of those plans throughout campus (Myers et al., 2010).

Main Theme 3: Self Preservation and Safety Responses

Students indicated a solid sense of individualized consideration further into the interview

process. The participants in the study expressed a range of self-preservation efforts and actions

when discussing the potential of an earthquake impacting campus. The codes that helped form

this theme included: get under desk, get out of building, highest ground, and stay inside. The

most common responses were: hide under a desk or table, get under a doorway, and get out of

78
the building: “I would find a safe area so a doorway or anywhere not in the open where rubble

would fall on me”; “I would probably if in class get out of class, because it is better to be outside,

but make sure I am away from trees and a crowd because people freak out”; “I know you go

under a table or a doorway, and I learned that in my previous school’s plan and high school.”

Despite students’ comments and the actions listed above, there was still a degree of doubt

within their responses, and their statements were often followed by the phrase “I don’t know” or

“That’s what I think I heard.” In addition, there was no uniformity amongst the actions. Student’s

responses varied, and students often had difficulty outlining a specific geographic location to

meet after an incident.

Major Theme 4: Campus Officials and Administrators

The fourth theme that emerged was the authority placed in campus officials and

administrators. This theme highlights the importance of inspirational motivation and idealized

influence. Students look to campus administrators, residential assistants and teachers for advice

in difficult situations. One commented that she would “wait for further instruction from RA.”

Another pointed out that “we have alarms and RA’s to help us and evacuate us.” Still another

student stated he would “listen and take the directions of the teachers, students, and faculty for

the best instructions or directions to ensure the safety for all those around us.”

Campus officials need to have a clear and in-depth understanding of the response efforts

at their school. Clearly, students look to those associated with the university to guide them in

times of disaster. Training, meetings and continuous planning help increase morale and aid the

return to normalcy (Smith, 2011).

79
Major Theme 5: Campus Information

Students looked to a variety of resources when obtaining information about natural

disaster and emergency preparedness. This theme, which speaks to intellectual stimulation, was

developed through the use of codes that reflected techniques for intellectual stimulation:

handouts, orientation, fire drill, someone come to class, brief, syllabus, posters, charts on doors,

good job of informing, counseling, admissions. Campus initiatives to inform students do not go

unnoticed. Handouts, orientation and practicing drills were all outlined as valid ways to help

students grasp emergency response information: “My campus needs a program that explains

about emergency situation. Then students can know what they should do”; “I would love for

there to be organized drills once a semester in the beginning”; and, “I think it would be beneficial

to require all incoming students (both freshmen and transfers) to undergo emergency

preparedness training. It would also help if the university heads emphasized the importance of

being prepared and attaching resources, making it easy for students.”

Students realize the need for understanding these procedures, and they also understand

the best way to communicate this information in a conceptual manner. It would be helpful for

University A to incorporate more disaster and emergency training into campus-wide initiatives.

Major Theme 6: Imminent Threats

The informants outlined a variety of threats that they consider while on campus. The

codes that helped build this theme included: shooter, tsunami, fire, earthquake, common

disasters, natural disasters, rape/sexual assault. Coincidently, a shooter on campus and acts of

violence were on the forefront of students’ minds. This mode of thinking reflects a strong

individualized consideration, but the lack of knowledge about what to do next in those situations

again highlighted the need for more efforts for intellectual stimulation. “Our school has doors

80
and locks in case of a shooter on campus,” claimed one student. Another indicated, “I know

security is always doing drills to guard against an intruder on campus. In addition, one student

pointed out, “My school has extensive police efforts for mostly crime-related disasters.”

Major Theme 7: Safety/Feelings of Security

Theme seven, Safety/Feelings of Security, speaks to individualized consideration, but

with more proactive behavior from campus administration, this theme could connect to

inspirational motivation and idealized influence, critical aspects of transformational leadership.

This theme was identified through the use of the codes: people on campus, prepared, it’s

important, I don’t know where, not at night, dorms, title matters, talk to others, authority, feels

good, unexpected, feel informed, athlete, support. This theme indicated there is a variety of steps

campus administrators can take in order to help students feel safe. Participants indicated “lights

and cameras” as a way to promote feelings of safety on campus.

In addition, “security officers walking around” make students feel secure on campus.

Panic and emergency buttons around campus promote feelings of safety amongst students. “I see

emergency buttons all over campus,” said one respondent. Students also commented that they

felt “safe because it is very well lit at night and there are a lot of people studying and there were

always people around.” This theme provided insight into the feelings of safety on campus.

People, lighting, cameras, and the presence of police representatives make students feel

comfortable. These are small efforts that campus officials can make to help protect their students

and, again, enhance inspirational motivation and idealized influence.

Major Theme 8: Safety Efforts

This theme illuminated the perspective of safety efforts and the inspirational motivation

of administrators. This theme reflects positively on the efforts of campus administration, as

81
students do feel that the university cares about their safety: “Seems pretty good. They do a good

job of diagramming escape routes and such”; “I think that the safety on our campus is dependent

on the disaster that takes place. Recently our campus has gone under many upgrades, including

computer-operated doors that allow faculty and security to control the campus from a remote

location to make it more secure”; “In the case of an emergency, I see the school itself being

prepared.” The gap between students’ perceived safety and actual safety did not lie in the

response plans or emergency preparedness efforts, but rather in the ability of the university to

communicate this information to the student body. One student commented, “I do not believe the

students are well enough informed or prepared for an emergency or natural disaster.”

Major Theme 9: Lack of Interest

The Lack of Interest theme shows a disconnect between students and administrators. This

theme, while not occurring in a majority of respondents, emerged from these codes: I wouldn’t

take time, don’t check emails, haven’t thought about it, optional for us. While this theme

appeared amongst a minority of respondents, some students expressed a lack of interest in

understanding emergency procedures at their institution. One commented that: “Sadly I would

probably out of habit grab a coffee or something if just to make sure it didn’t spill. In the grand

scheme of things not really important but I feel that is what I would do.”

Another commented that “I’m just not that interested; I know my campus will take care

of it.” It would be beneficial to figure out specific ways to reach this demographic. Some

students indicated “interactive links” as a way to encourage student participation. Regardless of

the method, the value of disaster preparedness and emergency response procedures may be better

established by university administration through transformational leadership components of

intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation.

82
Major Theme 10: Social Media and Online Efforts

Social media and online efforts were quickly identified as the preferred method of

communicating important information to the student body. Such technology utilization stems

from individualized consideration and the generational intellectual stimulation in other aspects of

students’ lives. The codes that helped identify this theme were: posted online, don’t check

emails, school website, call/phone use, look it up, Facebook, interactive links, bullet points, read

emails, Weather Channel, main campus/office, news, television, radio, emergency operations

center, and videos. Email and text messages were deemed as the quickest way to contact

students. “Usually the campus if there is any kind of emergency, they email it out over campus,

and I always check my email every day,” said one student. Another student indicated, “The best

way nowadays would be through social media.” Individuals also mentioned their “phone and

computer” as the main way they receive important information.

The interesting component of this theme was that students identified additional

characteristics within the email to help get the message across. “Interactive links”, were

mentioned as a way to make the learning process “fun and educational.” In addition, students

also specified the organization of effective emails, referencing an “important-sounding title” and

keeping the message “brief with bullet points.”

Major Theme 11: Location

This theme covered the various locations where student would congregate during a

disaster. The codes, which all helped with the formation of location as a theme, were: first aid

office, highest building, under door, health center, run to largest building, top of building, avoid

windows, dorms, science department, back of door, high school, gym, pray, practice. What

became clear was that students differed in their understanding of where to get information, as

83
well as where to go after an emergency. This disparity showed a lack of intellectual stimulation,

inspirational motivation and idealized influence when administration is not clearly defining

where students need to go during a disaster. Various places across campus were listed, such as

“the green,” “lacrosse field” and “track.”

In addition, both the “student services building” and the police office were indicated as

areas to go for further help. However, several students mentioned they had “no idea” where the

police department was on campus, and that they “didn’t know where to go.” Other locations that

came up frequently were the “resident halls” and “campus offices.” Students clearly lack an

understanding of where to meet during a disaster. This lack of understanding could be

problematic both for students seeking medical attention and for university officials who wish to

disseminate important information.

Major Theme 12: Desire to Know

Students consistently expressed individualized consideration with regard to disaster

preparedness and emergency response. Theme 12 emerged toward the end of both the surveys

and the interviews. Students were willing to listen, conceptually knew that keeping themselves

safe was important, and wanted more information, but they expressed concern about a lack of

engagement on the part of the university administration. Students not only began to realize that

they lacked an understanding of natural disaster and emergency preparedness procedures, but

they also were filled with a desire to know the appropriate steps. “I definitely want to be more

prepared so that is something that I need to understand,” one student said. Another commented

that, “I guess before I took the survey, I didn’t take into consideration the possibility that there

would be an emergency that I had to prepare for.” In addition, participants mentioned the need to

84
“be a little more educated on what to do in a natural disaster situation, especially an earthquake if

it happened right now.”

Summary

In conclusion, case study research was implemented to produce a qualitative study about

the perceptions of students with regards to natural disaster and emergency response procedures.

The analysis offered insight into the perceptions of students at University A, and provided twelve

themes that could be helpful to university administrators in creating a more efficient university

response system utilizing transformational leadership. The coding matrix provides the response

rates and frequency of coding phrases. The final results from this study are discussed in Chapter

5.

85
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Current State of Higher Education Institutions

Higher education institutions now compete in a global marketplace for students,

resources and funding. Virtual and for-profit institutions have flooded the higher education

market, creating an abundance of academic providers (Morey, 2004). Globalization of economic,

political, and intellectual property has forced change and competition within the landscape of

higher education institutions (Morey, 2004). Previously established geographic boundaries have

been eradicated, and there is an increased demand for higher education institutions to operate

under a more defined structure (Cantor& Courant, 2003).

All of these changes to the basic structures and operating procedures of higher education

institutions can have a huge impact on the organizational culture of an institution. It is essential

for campus administrators to remember the core values that have acted as the cornerstone for

traditional higher education in the United States. Universities must at all cost protect their

students and perform their in loco parentis duties. Furthermore, the risk of disasters continues to

persist in the twenty-first century (Rolle & Zdziarski, 2007; Sadiq & Weible, 2010). Higher

education institutions must be ready for a variety of emergencies and be able to react at a

moment’s notice and in an organized manner (Myers et al., 2010). Incorporating

transformational leadership theory may help administrators effectively communicate natural

disaster and emergency preparedness efforts to the student population.

The purpose of this study was to understand students’ perceptions of natural disaster

response and preparedness efforts at a higher education institution through the lens of

transformational leadership theory. As previously mentioned, higher education institutions offer

86
several distinct organizational boundaries that impact the emergency response system. Currently,

higher education institutions are hindered by organizational characteristics that act as barriers for

the implementation of a successful emergency response system. Each higher education

institution differs from the next, and plans must be specialized to safeguard against institutional

vagaries. Transformational leadership theory asks leaders to utilize individualized consideration,

intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence to enact an improved

and specialized emergency preparedness effort.

Higher Education and University A

The purpose of this study was to understand students’ perceptions of emergency and

disaster response with regards to natural disasters. The scope of this study did not expand to the

other types of disaster that can occur at higher education institutions. The target population was

the student body at a medium-sized public institution in California. The school was chosen

because of the imminent threat of natural disasters, specifically earthquakes that characterize

California. The San Andreas Fault has the capacity for a catastrophic disastrous event in the near

future. There is no timeline or warning on these types of disasters, yet society as a whole, and

specifically higher education institutions, must be prepared for emergency situations.

As an in-depth literature analysis highlighted there continues to be a disconnect between

students’ understanding of the importance of disaster response and emergency preparedness

efforts for natural disasters while on campuses (Clarke, 2013; Farazmand, 2007; Fillmore et al.,

2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). Higher educational leadership inherently lacks the fundamental

organizational structure to effectively disseminate important information required to keep

students safe during a natural disaster; however, this study highlights areas where administration

87
may utilize transformational leadership theory in order to improve their communication efforts

with students (Myers et al., 2010).

Emergency Protocols for University A

As indicated in the methodology University A maintained an in-depth website presenting

a great deal of information about natural disaster response (specifically earthquakes) and

emergency preparedness. The university website had links to health and safety information as

well as a flip chart outlining important steps in the hazard mitigation process. Emergency contact

numbers were listed in both English and Spanish and were easily accessible for all students. The

sidebar menu also had links to various human (shooter, bomb threat, crime in progress), natural

(earthquake, tsunami, power outage) and facility (building evacuation, chemical incident, and

radioactive incident) disasters. The sidebar also included links to the campus emergency

operations plan (EOP), the emergency operations center (EOC) and other emergency planning

resources. A university-wide alert system had been set up through the use of cellular devices and

student emails. A computer software tool was implemented throughout the university as a way to

help departments quickly resume the University’s mission after an unexpected emergency. It is

clear that efforts are made by the administration to make emergency preparedness planning

efforts. However, what remain unclear are the steps that University A takes to ensure that the

message is effectively understood by the student body. Transformational leadership, specifically

individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized

influence may offer a way to combat the communication problem at University A. For the

reader’s convenience, a full summary of the information and dissemination methods can be seen

in the methods section.

88
 The results from this study suggest that, despite a solid effort, University A needs to do a

better job of disseminating natural disaster and emergency preparedness information to the

student body. There needs to be a more distinct line of authority able to make quick decisions.

The use of transformational leadership, specifically individualized consideration and

inspirational motivation, by administrators may help link students with the organizational goals

of their higher education institution. Transformational leadership also instills invaluable

leadership qualities in students through intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence, which

could lead to a more prepared, and more diverse student body. The following analysis

conceptualizes the findings within the broader scope of the traditional roles of higher education

institutions.

Disasters are typically instantaneous and often unexpected (Hermann, 1963). In some

cases, such as a flood, the impending disaster can take a several days to produce significant

change on the physical environment of a higher education institution. But in other cases, such as

a tornado, hurricane or earthquake—or in violent criminal behavior like an active shooter—the

effect can be immediate and catastrophic. Higher education institutions could benefit by taking a

proactive approach to emergency response and disaster planning. Planning efforts should be

multi-disciplinary and anything but linear (Smith, 2011). This study suggests that

transformational leadership components of individualized consideration and intellectual

stimulation could be helpful in planning ahead for such disasters by making the planning efforts

a process that includes the collaborative efforts of top-level administrators and the student body.

Incorporating the student body is critical in the planning practice. Research indicates the need to

effectively communicate and collaborate emergency preparedness efforts with faculty, staff and

students (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013). The results from this study specifically the themes of “Lack

89
of Knowledge”, “Self-Preservation and Safety Response”, “Desire to Know” and “Campus

Officials and Administrators” suggest that the students at University A are unclear about proper

safety procedures but will take self-preservation actions during a disaster. There is a desire to

know the emergency plan at University A and campus administrators possess that knowledge in

the eyes of the student body. Through the incorporation of transformational leadership theory,

administrators have the capacity to understand students perceptions of emergency preparedness

efforts, make students feel involved in the planning process (individualized consideration),

challenge students to communicate alternative planning efforts (intellectual stimulation), ensure

students value the need for understanding natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts

(inspirational motivation), and act as role models for students while promoting students to take

on a leadership capacity (idealized influence).

The results from this study stress the important that those involved in the planning efforts

clearly understand their specific emergency response duties on campus. Make no mistake: each

higher education institution has a distinct organizational culture that is shaped by those

governing and attending the institution (Kezar and Eckel, 2008). The themes “Standard Public

Safety Officials” and “Campus Officials and Administrators” further reinforce that students look

to leadership to provide guidance at University A. An emergency or disaster response plan must

be dynamic in its evaluation and execution to of University A need to be effectively addressed

during the planning for a natural disaster (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011). The

organizational characteristics of University A such as location, size and student population

exponentially increase the need for systematic approaches to emergency response efforts

(Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers et al, 2010).

90
 The Impact of Organizational Behavior on Student Perceptions

Students’ perceptions about the natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts at

University A study offered invaluable insight. Through the survey and interviews, students

misunderstood safety procedures, evident in the “Self-Preservation and Safety Response” theme

and initially lacked awareness of the need for emergency preparedness prior to the survey and

interviews conducted (as seen in the theme “Lack of Interest”, however once alerted to the

concern, almost all felt it was important to learn more about the natural disaster and emergency

response preparedness at their school (suggested by the theme “Desire to Know”). Student’s felt

public safety officials should be present and prevalent at University A and that leadership

personnel (“Campus Officials and Administrators”) should be involved in the development of a

plan. The theme of “Standard Public Safety Officials” provided insight that campus police, the

fire department and paramedics were all viewed by students as valuable resources during an

emergency situation. Students’ perceptions indicated that there was an overarching lack of

knowledge about the natural disaster and emergency preparedness procedures at University A.

Students often claimed they “didn’t know” about the appropriate steps to take or the resources

available to protect them during an emergency. Self-preservation actions were often lackluster

and without merit. Most were very unclear about where to go or what to do in the event of an

earthquake or other disaster, a very unfortunate state of affairs for a higher education institution

in the 21st century. Transformational leadership theory components could help administrators

understand the perceptions of students (individualized consideration) and prioritizing natural

disaster and emergency preparedness efforts by leadership personnel (inspirational motivation)

could help improve the communication between students and administrators.

91
 In the mind of student’s there was a lack of uniformity with regards to areas to meet (as

seen in “Self-Preservation and Safety Response) or appropriate procedures during a disaster but

the theme “Desire to Know” suggests students recognized importance after the survey or

interviews. Most students relied on lessons they learned outside of the institution to guide their

actions. Campus officials and administrators were identified as people students would seek out to

guide them and provide them with information, further accentuating the need for the use of

transformational leadership by campus administrators. It became clear through an analysis of

students’ perceptions that university staff, faculty, RA’s and administrators all need an in-depth

knowledge of response efforts. Campus information was easily disseminated through handouts,

posters and student orientation; however students lacked a general understanding and

comprehension of these procedures.

Fire drills and practice techniques were identified as a means of reassuring students’

understanding of emergency procedures however, students did not connect these fire drills to

emergency management protocols. Incorporating natural disaster drills at University A and

emphasizing them as emergency management preparedness efforts may help familiarize students

with campus safety procedures. Through the use of transformational leadership components of

individualized consideration and inspirational motivation it may be possible to identify the

aspects of emergency protocols that lack understanding (individualized consideration) and help

create an environment where students value messages (inspirational motivation) disseminated by

leadership personnel regarding natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts.

Students viewed violence as the most frequent imminent threat on campus, and natural

disasters were rarely thought about as dangerous situations at University A. This shows a lack of

individualized consideration by the administration. Students were much more concerned with

92
the possibility of a campus shooter and sexual assault showing that individualized consideration

was given to these topics. Safety and feelings of security were associated with technology such

as cameras, emergency call buttons and lights, as well as the presence of other students/campus

security. As a whole, students did not fully understand on-campus safety efforts, but they did

view those efforts as available. These results show that there is an opportunity to provide

students with intellectual stimulation regarding natural disaster and emergency preparedness

efforts. Students also identified the need to better understand the resources available to them

during an emergency situation and pointed to social media and online efforts as the best way to

get in touch with them, provide intellectual stimulation and utilize individualized consideration

to communicate important information.

The organization of the message, inclusion of interactive links, bullet points and an

important title message were all mentioned by students as a way to promote intellectual

stimulation and inspirational motivation. These aspects of transformational leadership may

improve the likelihood that students not only received but also comprehended the message. By

incorporating transformational leadership theory, specifically individualized consideration and

intellectual stimulation, campus leaders can better understand the current students’

comprehension of natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts on campus at University

A. For example, identifying social media as a preferred method of contact could help

administrators shape and disseminate the natural disaster and emergency preparedness plan at

University A.

There was no uniform or "safe" location to meet during a disaster that was easily

accessible, yet students did express a desire to know what to do during an emergency. Students’

perceptions were far from comprehensive, but they were in agreement that a more detailed plan

93
was viewed as viable and important (“Desire to Know). The participants stated an interest in and

understanding of the need to prepare for natural disasters and emergency situations. Therefore,

students showed a concern for individualized consideration, but they had not been engaged in

intellectual stimulation and as a result lacked inspired motivation as indicated in transformational

leadership strategies.

When analyzing emergency response plans at higher education institutions,

administrators must safeguard against compartmentalization. Far too often, higher education

institutions encourage departments to operate independent of each other and limit collaborative

efforts (Myer et al., 2010). This compartmentalization fits within the context of daily operations

but limits the decision-making that must accompany a successful response effort (Smith, 2011).

It is imperative that students be engaged through transformational leadership theory in

intellectual stimulation throughout the preplanning phase through the promotion of creative

thinking during emergency training exercises. In addition, an area where University A could

improve through taking individualized consideration towards each student and asking students’

opinions of current natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts.

Emergency response plans become out of date quickly when there is a lack of activity

(Myers et al., 2010). Every year, there are new students on campuses, ranging from new

freshmen to transfer students on University A. These new students often have no information

(“Lack of Knowledge” on disaster preparedness on the campus. Training initiatives must

concentrate on not only the students at University A but members of the disaster response team

as well. The results from this study showed that students viewed “Standard Public Safety

Officials” and “Campus Officials and Administrators” as people to help protect their safety and

provide valuable information. Flin and Yule found that “effective leadership has been shown to

94
improve safety performance in high hazard and complex organizational environments” (2004, p.

50). Mitigation efforts such as training have been shown to drastically reduce the length of time

it takes to return to normalcy after the onset of a disaster (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011).

The potential for leaders to utilize transformational leadership theory to engage students in

intellectual stimulation may redefine the institutional culture by placing an increased emphasis

on mitigation efforts through training and collaborative planning between students and

administrators (Clarke, 2013; Flin & Yule, 2004). Allowing students to participate in training

activities not only improves the understanding of emergency protocols but it could promote

creative thinking about emergency situations (intellectual stimulation).

A fallacy exists within the field of emergency management that having a plan is a sign of

organizational preparedness. Planning is a process that must be continuously revamped and

reviewed (Smith, 2011). This static-planning ideology highlights a larger problem: the reactive

approach to emergency response efforts (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011). Response plans

must be flexible and adaptive, but there must still be a significant amount of structure involved in

the coordination of resources and personnel, especially at higher education institutions (Fillmore

et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers et al., 2010).

Poor leadership is at the forefront of this problem. Top-level leadership personnel must

stress the importance of continuous training and revamping of the response effort to fit the

changing demographics of an institution in order to be effective in providing the transformational

leadership components of inspirational motivation and idealized influence (Kapucu & Khosa,

2013). Across the board, a major critique of higher education institutions is a lack of overall

practice or an absence of practice in general (Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Myers et al., 2010).

95
 Preparedness, practice and familiarity with the response plan have been shown to greatly

impact the success of the response effort, and as indicated above must be implemented at

University A (Mitroff et al., (2006), Diamond & Alpaslan, 2006; Smith, 2011). In addition, these

qualities allow an institution to be proactive, as opposed to reactive, with regards to the response

effort. Disaster management expands beyond an emergency response plan or separate

consideration of specific types of disasters (Mitroff et al., 2006). Disaster management must be a

holistic process that accounts for a wide range of disaster and the particular interaction of each

crisis within the organization (Mitroff et al., 2006).

Organizational Response for University A

Disaster management and emergency management plans must include four distinct

phases: preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation efforts. As suggested by Mitroff et al.

(2006), institutions must (a) plan for a wide range of disaster types, (b) provide mechanisms for

not only detecting but also communicating early warning signs of disaster, (c) include a

collaborative disaster management team with a great deal of training experience, and (d)

incorporate internal and external stakeholders within all disaster plans and policies. The purpose

of this study was to understand students’ perceptions of the natural disaster response plan and

emergency preparedness efforts at a medium-sized, public higher education institution.

However, this study suggests that the only way to understand emergency response

procedures on campus is to ask the students that the plan is designed to protect. Incorporating

transformational leadership components asks administrators to pay attention to the needs of

students during pre-planning efforts (individualized consideration), encourage students to create

innovative ways to communicate emergency procedures (intellectual stimulation), cultivate a

campus environment that values the messages delivered by administrators (inspirational

96
motivation) and allows leadership personnel to act as role models for students (idealized

influence) in natural disaster and emergency preparedness planning.

While it is impossible to predict every type of disaster that could occur within a higher

education institution, those with a sufficiently trained disaster management team have the

capacity to recover at a much quicker rate (Mitroff et al., 2006). Students need to understand the

steps to take, procedures to follow and the campus staff that may help communicate this

information to the masses. This study identified 12 major themes; of the themes, “Lack of

Knowledge” and “Self-preservation and Safety Response” suggest a lack of comprehension with

the current emergency preparedness and disaster response efforts at University A. It is important

to understand that campus officials and administrators were seen as leaders who could provide

students with useful information. As such, University A leaders are semi-effective in their efforts

to establish the transformational leadership component of inspirational motivation but still fall

short in other components such as individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and

idealized influence. Leaders at University A must build upon their ability to establish

inspirational motivation and remain cognizant of the need for improvement in the areas of

individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and idealized influence.

Implications for Disaster Preparedness

Within the field of emergency management, preparedness refers to all actions and

procedures taken before a critical incident or disaster. Preparedness efforts are critical aspects of

organizational safety that impact the continuation of business, safety of employees and students

as well as organizational public perception (Myers, et al., 2010). Steps within the disaster

preparedness phase are taken with the underlying purpose of protecting human life and property

(Lindell, 2013). Preparedness is based on the understanding that a disaster will occur and that

97
policies, plans and resources must be outlined and organized beforehand (Lindell, 2013; Kapucu

& Khosa, 2013). Each community (University A) faces a unique set of organizational challenges

based on of its geographic location, its culture and its community norms (Kapucu & Khosa,

2013). In order to effectively address the disaster preparedness efforts, planning must be done on

an individual level; hence the need for administrators to incorporate transformational leadership

theory. As pointed out by Lindell, (2013) effective disaster preparedness efforts must understand

and identify the following community characteristics: (a) the agencies that will participate the in

preparedness process, (b) the emergency response and disaster recovery actions that are realistic

for the community, (c) the ways in which the emergency response and disaster efforts will

function and what resources will be required, and (d) methods to maintain disaster preparedness.

In addition, it is important for students at University A to understand additional help that

is available outside of the campus. The Army and the Red Cross have historically been important

on-scene entities during response and recovery efforts (Lindell, 2013). Emergency managers

need to have an understanding of the role each of these social groups within the local

community. The ability of social groups to help the preparedness effort have been viewed as

important, especially with regards to natural disasters (Myers et al., 2010; Smith, 2011). The

results of this study failed to mention any of the above entities as the themes “Standard Public

Safety Officials” was often limited to emergency professionals on campus, highlighting the need

for improve emergency preparedness education. Social, political and economic groups all need to

be identified within the local community (Grundy, 2013). Each possesses different

responsibilities and powers within the community and has the capacity to impact higher

education institutions. These considerations within the constructs of transformational leadership

98
theory are crucial for ensuring an effective and collaborative response effort at University A

(Bishop, 2013; Fillmore et al., 2011; Smith, 2011).

Evacuation procedures, as well as stocking up on basic necessities such as food and

water, are examples of preparedness activities that were not identified at University A and can

call into the theme of “Lack of Knowledge” As indicted above, preparedness efforts include a

variety of entities and must be detailed in their description of appropriate behaviors. In the

preparedness phase, students make specific decisions about where to go, who to call, and who to

look to as a leader during an emergency (Myers et al., 2010). A chart on a bulletin board with the

names and contact numbers of the disaster management team would be an example of a

preparedness effort. Disaster kits, fire drills, and maps of campus evacuation routes are all

considered preparedness protocols that can limit the impact of a disaster (Myers et al., 2010).

The results of this study such as the themes of “Lack of Knowledge”, “Campus Information” and

“Lack of Interest” suggest a need for the improvement of preparedness protocols. While

preparedness efforts have the capacity to limit the impact of a disaster at a higher education

institution, a lack of understanding of these preparedness efforts by students, staff and

administrators can negate pre-planning endeavors. Incorporating transformational leadership

theory could provide administrators with a realistic understanding of students’ perceptions of

response efforts (individualized consideration) while reinforcing the importance of emergency

preparedness plans (inspirational motivation).

Response

Within the field of emergency management, responders take action upon the “detection”

of an event and conclude with the stabilization of the community (Lindell, 2013, p. 20). In this

study students at University A saw both “Standard Public Safety Officials” and “Campus

99
Officials and Administrators” as groups that could stabilize the community. Response activities

provide emergency assistance, lessen the probability of additional injuries and help improve the

speed of recovery efforts (Clarke, 2013; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011). By taking the

time to plan and prepare for disasters, response efforts have the capacity to be identified and

rooted in predetermined planning efforts. While no disaster unfolds exactly as planned, general

response planning should address response efforts with the exception of a few alterations (Smith,

2011). Immediately leaving a classroom with windows during a tornado emergency is an

example of a response effort at a higher education institution. The results of this study (“Lack of

Knowledge”, “Self-Preservation and Safety Response, Campus Information”, and “Location”

suggest that students at University A need to improve their understanding of response efforts.

Response efforts should be effectively communicated and comprehended by students at

University A. Transformational leadership theory could serve as a framework that allows

administrators the capacity for effectively communicating response efforts to the students by

paying attention to students needs (individualized consideration), encouraging innovative ideas

from students (intellectual stimulation), promoting an institutional environment that places a

value on emergency messages (inspirational motivation) and acting as role models (idealized

influence).

Recovery

Recovery efforts are often characterized by the time it takes to return to normalcy (Smith,

2011). This normalization includes social, political and economic recovery at higher education

institutions. Typically the recovery activities are differentiated between short and long-term

efforts (Lindell, 2013). Short-term recovery typically lasts two weeks and includes the return of

vital systems of operations such as transportation and electricity. Communication is a key aspect

100
of the recovery efforts (Smith, 2011). Long-term recovery has no specific timeline and can take

years. It deals with the stabilization of all systems and is much more in-depth than the short-term

recovery efforts (Myers et al., 2010). Mitigation and preplanning efforts can help limit the return

to normalcy for an organization (Smith, 2011). The results from this study suggest that students

have a “Desire to Know” about planning efforts available at campus, yet lack the understanding

of specific disaster protocols such as “Location” but they will partake in “Self-Preservation and

Safety Response” actions. The student population at University A sees administrators and

emergency professionals as important to the recovery efforts. It is the role of the administration

at University A to help familiarize students with emergency procedures and set an example

(idealized influence). To help combat the effects of a disaster local, state and federal

governments, and even private industry aid recovery by providing financial assistance (FEMA,

2003). This money is intended to help rebuild and repair damaged aspects of the community;

however, the financial resources could make more of an impact if there was a better

understanding of planning efforts at University A. Addressing the “Lack of Knowledge”,

“Location”, and “Safety Efforts” could limit the financial assistance, and improve the recovery

time. This study suggests that incorporating transformational leadership theory could allow for

the clear communication of important short and long-term recovery efforts at University A.

Mitigation

Mitigation efforts refer to activities that take place both before and after an emergency

(Lindell, 2013). These efforts must be continuous and are aimed at reducing the probability of

the occurrence of a disaster (Smith, 2011). Mitigation activities also include a variety of

initiatives to postpone and limit the impact of a disaster on the community. Examples of

mitigation efforts include flood and fire insurance. In addition, when constructing a home,

101
following the safety protocols with regards to wiring and building materials is another example

of a mitigation effort (Myers, et al., 2010). The results of this study suggest that students at

University A identified campus characteristics that produced “Safety and Feelings of Security”

and recognized the university cared about the well-being of students (“Safety Efforts”). However

students overall still lacked an understanding of natural disaster mitigation efforts but deemed

them as important. Administrators, and public safety officials were viewed as individuals on

campus that could help with knowledge about mitigation efforts. Not only understanding

mitigation efforts but, effectively communicating these efforts through transformational

leadership to those within a higher education institution may improve the ability of mitigation

efforts by administrators at University A.

Emergency Management Leadership in Higher Education

As pointed out by Northouse (2011), leadership is a dynamic process that involves the

free and constant communication of information between entities. Leadership must be defined as

a two-way street, in which all parties continuously communicate through various channels (Bass,

1998; Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2011). This definition is especially important in emergency

management due to the quick onset of most natural disasters. The majority of emergency

management literature emphasizes the importance of planning and mitigation efforts in limiting

the impact of a disaster (Mitroff et al., 2006; Myer et al., 2011; Smith, 2011). The correlation

between planning and the return to normalcy is often characterized as an inverse relationship.

The more time spent planning, the less time spent on recovery and vice versa. Despite all the

literature on the positive benefits of emergency response planning, instances of natural disasters

are so sporadic that these planning efforts often remain at the bottom of the agenda at higher

education institutions. Even more disturbing is that disasters typically don’t develop with the

102
exact characteristics of the training exercises (Mitroff et al., 2006). This discrepancy places more

of an emphasis on providing adequate structures and continuous training exercises at higher

education institutions.

For these types of relief activities to be successful, planning and mitigation by top-level

leaders and administrators (“Campus Official and Administrators”) must support activities and

make them a priority through the use of transformational leadership. As Kiernan pointed out

(2005), planning efforts that lack support from top-management typically fail due to a lack of

communication and perceived importance by those within the organization. While students at

University A felt that the administration cared about their safety (“Safety Efforts” and “Safety

and Feelings of Security”) more needs to be done to update the “Lack of Knowledge”, “Self-

Preservation and Safety Response” efforts and understanding of “Campus Information”,

“Imminent Threats” and address a “Lack of Interest”. This study suggests that “Social Media and

Online” methods of communication could address students “Desire to Know” at University A.

Transformational leadership theory acts as a safeguard against a failure in communication

between students, staff, faculty and administrators by incorporating individualized consideration,

intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence.

Limitations of Study

As discussed in Chapter 1, the research of students’ perceptions of disaster preparedness

and emergency management had limitations. Due to narrowed focus, this study did not explore

traditional issues that hinder higher education institutions’ mission, such as cheating, financial

aid limitations, hazing, and school shootings. Other types of disasters outside of natural

(ecological) disasters were not reviewed, but it is understood that students’ perceptions of other

types of disaster response issues may also mirror the results of this exploration (Watson et al,

103
2011). Managers, faculty and staff were not surveyed or interviewed for the findings of this

study but may also have perceptions that could offer valuable insight. Despite the excellent

information provided by the informants of this study, higher education institutions should assess

their own preparedness and ability to disseminate emergency response information based on their

own disaster plans.

Initially, it was feared that one medium-sized, public higher education institution might

not yield enough data about the perceptions of students on disaster preparedness and emergency

management. However, given University A's efforts to inform students of disaster preparedness

and emergency response plans, the findings from this study may serve as a reference for other

institutions across the country to begin enhancing efforts during natural disaster preparedness

and response. Nevertheless, information garnered from this study cannot be generalized across

higher education institutions but can instead be replicated at alternative institutions for more

specific and relatable findings.

Recommendations for Future Research

Emergency response planning must start at the local level and must be a continuous

process (Smith, 2011). Research has shown that colleges and universities are often marketed as

appealing places with green, grassy lawns, attractive residence halls, and new classrooms

(Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). However, higher education institutions can easily be affected by a

natural disaster, as we have seen most recently with Katrina, a hurricane that devastated New

Orleans and many of the surrounding higher education institutions. Therefore, disaster

preparedness and emergency response plans must be kept up-to-date and effectively

disseminated per the population they serve (Rolle & Zdziarski, 2007; Smith, 2011).

Transformational leadership theory as a way to communicate natural disaster and emergency

104
preparedness efforts should be studied at additional higher education institutions. Response and

preparedness could be enhanced through future research on the impact of transformational

leadership theory on emergency preparedness efforts.

Because of the limited scope of this research study, the knowledge and perceptions of

administration personnel and faculty members of higher education intuitions were not evaluated.

However, these professionals may provide a deeper insight into the incorporation of

transformational leadership theory as a method to effectively communicate disaster preparedness

and emergency response efforts at higher education institutions. Administrative personnel may

also be able to provide a more in-depth evaluation of policy weaknesses and strengths for the

pre-planning process in relationship to public policy procedures.

As this study did not review the public policy of each type of disaster response, a review

of public policy for all types of disaster preparedness and emergency management may provide

insights into the requirements of and resources available to higher education institutions when

planning for an emergency. An exploration of the advancements within public policy regarding

disasters in general may highlight the successes or failures of higher education institutions with

regard to appropriate response pre-planning and mitigation.

Finally, a longitudinal study of natural disaster response at the higher education

institution focused on in this study may yield pertinent information regarding the role of

transformational leadership and the capacity of this theory to improve emergency response

efforts. The intricacies of students’ perceptions may offer only glimpses into a much bigger

picture of preparedness and management for the institution on a long-term basis.

105
 Summary

While many of the findings in this study agree with current research within the field of

emergency management, students’ perceptions offered key insight into valuable ways for

administrators to utilize transformational leadership to better understand and communicate

information to the study body as a whole. This study identified major themes regarding disaster

management at higher learning institutions, such as standard public safety officials, lack of

knowledge, self-preservation actions, campus officials/administrators, eminent threats,

safety/feelings of security, safety efforts, lack of interest, social media/online efforts, locations

and the desire to know and add to the body of knowledge in the field of emergency management.

Natural disaster and emergency preparedness efforts often require quick, concise actions.

Understanding these efforts before an emergency situation allows for responders to take a

proactive, as opposed to a reactive, approach to the response effort (Bishop, 2013; Clarke, 2013;

Kapucu & Khosa, 2013; Smith, 2011). The imminent threat of emergencies is intensified due to

the governing structures, and transient student populations at higher education institutions.

Concentrating on an effective communication process and continuous planning can help limit the

return to normalcy after an emergency situation (Fillmore et al., 2011; Kapucu & Khosa, 2013;

Smith, 2011).

Due to the unique characteristics of higher education institutions and their governance,

mitigation efforts must be a priority of administrators and leadership. Understanding students’

perceptions of natural disaster response and emergency preparedness efforts may help ensure that

students are prepared to effectively respond to an emergency situation. Further research should

focus on examining the differences with regards to the natural disaster response and emergency

preparedness efforts at schools with different geographic and demographic characterizations

106
through the lens of transformational leadership. It would be interesting to see the differences

between a public and private institution, as well as between a small and large institution. In

addition, it would be interesting to see the ways in which different communication efforts

beyond transformational leadership theory impact students’ ability to retain important

information. These suggestions for future research all fall outside the scope of this study but

would be useful in better understanding the field of emergency management within higher

education.

107
 APPENDIX A

SURVEY QUESTIONS

1. Please describe your gender.

2. How many years have you attended your educational institution?
3. How would you describe your current age?
4 To the best of your ability, please describe the term emergency preparedness.
5. How would you evaluate the safety on your campus with regards to natural disaster and
emergency preparedness?
6. Describe everything your know about the natural disaster and emergency response efforts at
your school.
7. Has your campus discussed an emergency response plan with you? To what capacity have
they shared the plan? If no, what would you like to know about the emergency response plan at
your institution?
8. Please define, to the best of your knowledge, the term disaster response team. Can you
identify any members of the disaster response team at your school and/or their responsibilities?
9. What resources are available for your use to ensure your safety during a disaster?
10. Please outline the steps you think or know you should take if a natural disaster such as an
earthquake were to occur while you were on campus. There are no wrong answers!
11. What improvements if any would you want to see implemented in your campus response
plan? If changes are needed, what is the best way to communicate this information to fellow
students?
12. Can you identify the location of the Emergency Operations Center on campus? If yes, how
did you learn about the location? If no, please take your best guess as to the location.
13. What are two ways you can check the local weather conditions in your area?
14. How would you go about gaining access to pertinent university safety information?
15. Please identify a Department Safety Representative and outline their role in an emergency.
16. In your opinion, what is the best way to communicate important information to the student
population at your school? Please identify why this form of communication will be the most
successful.

108
 APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM

This study attempts to collect information about the perceptions of students and administrators at
private institutions on the emergency response plans and natural disaster preparedness of their
university.

Procedures

You will be asked to complete a short questionnaire about the person in the photograph. The
questionnaire consists of 8 questions and will take approximately 30 minutes or less. Questions
are designed to determine how you expect a simulated professor would behave in a class setting
based on your past experience. This questionnaire will be conducted with an online Qualtrics-
created survey.

Risks/Discomforts

Risks are minimal for involvement in this study. However, you may feel emotionally uneasy
when asked to make judgments based on the photograph and biography provided. Although we
do not expect any harm to come upon any participants due to electronic malfunction of the
computer, it is possible though extremely rare and uncommon.

Benefits

It is hoped that through your participation, researchers will learn more about the communication
process between administrators and students.

Confidentiality

The data collected will be stored in the HIPPA-compliant, Qualtrics-secure database until the
primary investigator has deleted it.

109
Compensation

There is no compensation.

Participation

Participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at
any time or refuse to participate entirely without jeopardy to your academic status, GPA or
standing with the university. If you desire to withdraw, please close your Internet browser and
notify the principal investigator.

Questions about the Research

If you have questions regarding this study, you may contact Joshua Coveleski.

110
 APPENDIX C

COMPLETE CODING SCHEMA

Table 3: Complete Coding Table

Phrase Code Frequency

1. Police/Campus Security PCS 103
2. I Don’t Know What To Do IDKW 124
3. Get Under Desk GUD 51
4. Fire Department/Fire Fighter FD/FF 25
5. Campus Administration CA 30
6. Residential Assistant RA 23
7. Teacher/Faculty/Instructor TFI 51
8. Handouts HA 17
9. Orientation O 16
10. Shooter SH 11
11. Fire Drill FDD 18
12. Safety/Feel Safe SFS 67
13. Well Lit WL 6
14. People on Campus POC 15
15. Paramedics/EMT PAR 21
16. 911 911 13
17. Student Services SS 38
18. Panic/Emergency Button PEB 11
19. Tools T 1
20. Fire Extinguisher FE 10
21. Prepared P 20
22. Didn’t Realize How Little DRHL 23
23. Wait for instruction WFI 27
24. Haven’t Been Given Into HBG 33
25. Online Course OC 12
26. It’s Important II 33
27. I’m Interested INT 29
28. Get Out of Building GOB 41
29. I Don’t Know Where IKW 12
30. Shared SH 6
31. Not Shared NS 10

111
Table 3 Continued
Phrase Code Frequency
32. I Wouldn’t Take Time IWT 17
33. Someone Came To Class SCT 5
34. Brief B 4
35. Not At Night NAN 7
36. Highest Ground HG 3
37. Tsunami TS 28
38. Emergency Supplies ES 1
39. Cameras C 6
40. Look On Website LOC 7
41. Google G 4
42. Posted Online PO 3
43. Email/Text Alert ETA 112
44. Don’t Check Emails DCE 2
45. Fire Alarm FAL 6
46. Fire FI 22
47. More Information MI 5
48. Should Know What To Do SKW 6
49. Earthquake EQ 26
50. Stay Inside STY 31
51. School Website SW 29
52. Syllabus SYL 8
53. I Don’t Feel IDI 5
54. I Don’t Remember IDR 7
55. In Each Class IEC 21
56. First Aid Office FAO 4
57. Presentation PRS 3
58. School Could Improve SCI 4
59. Posters PST 32
60. Charts On Doors COD 3
61. Don’t Really Know DRK 7
62. I Did Drills IDD 12
63. Highest Building HBL 8
64. Under Door UD 14
65. Call/Phone Use CPU 62
66. Common Disasters CDS 3

112
Table 3 Continued
Phrase Code Frequency
67. Natural Disasters NDS 34
68. Health Center HC 3
69. Campus Admissions CAD 2
70. Escape Plan ESP 23
71. I Want To Know IWTK 18
72. Look It Up LIU 5
73. Run To Largest Building RLB 3
74. University Cares/Prepared UCP 22
75. Before School BFR 2
76. Supplies/Resources SRS 14
77. Top Of Building TOB 3
78. Haven’t Through About It HTA 9
79. Willing To Listen WTL 4
80. Facebook FBK 5
81. Avoid Windows AWS 8
82. Interactive Link ILK 6
83. I Know Where IKW 9
84. Good Job Of Informing GJI 5
85. Counseling CNS 7
86. Important IMP 2
87. Bullet Points BPS 12
88. Help Center HCT 1
89. Somewhat SW 3
90. Dorms DRM 5
91. Reassuring RRS 3
92. Resident Halls RHS 2
93. Title Matters TM 4
94. Talk To Others TTO 2
95. Authority ATR 5
96. Rape/Sexual Assault RSA 11
97. Read Emails REM 9
98. Comfortable CMF 7
99. Science Department SCP 1
100. Back Of Door BOD 16
101. High School HSC 18

113
Table 3 Continued
Phrase Code Frequency
102. Phone Number PN 11
103. Feels Good FG 8
104. Unexpected UEXP 12
105. Feel Informed FI 6
106. Campus Prepared CPRR 8
107. Weather Channel WCN 9
108. Want To Talk To Others WTTO 3
109. Fog Horn FGH 1
110. No N1 38
111. Yes They Shared YTS 4
112. Optional For Us OFU 2
113. Want to Have Drill WTHD 5
114. Athlete ATH 1
115. Help In Disaster HIC 15
116. Support SPT 1
117. They Felt TF 3
118. Portable Radios PRAD 4
119. Gym G1 3
120. Exit Signs/Signs ESS 11
121. Pray P1 1
122. Go To Basement GTB 5
123. Inform Me IME 9
124. Head To Car HTCR 3
125. Practice PRC 8
126. What To Do WTDO 6
127. Step By Step Instructions SBS 8
128. Emergency Map EMA 5
129. Video VI 4
130. Main Campus/Office MCO 9
131. Admissions ADM 5
132. Campus Map CMP 3
133. Recorder RCR 2
134. Internet/Online IOE 17
135. News NWS 19
136. Television TV 16

114
Table 3 Continued
Phrase Code Frequency
137. Radio RDO 7
138. Emergency Operations Center EOC 2
139. Student Leaders SLS 4
140. Red Cross RCS 2

115
 APPENDIX D
IRB APPROVAL

The Florida State University

Office of the Vice President For Research
Human Subjects Committee
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673, FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 12/2/2013

To: Joshua Coveleski

Dept.: EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research

Disaster management: An understanding of student perceptions of emergency response plans at
small private institutions

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the
proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and one member of
the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR §
46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to
weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk

116
and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be
required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent
form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be
used in recruiting research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 12/1/2014 you must request a renewal of approval for
continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your
expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request
renewal of your approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by
the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol
change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition,
federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any
unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is
reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving
human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that
the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The
Assurance Number is FWA00000168/IRB number IRB00000446.

Cc: Robert Schwartz, Chair

HSC No. 2013.11699

117
 REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into Town--and Moving On: The Community College in
the Lives of Traditional-Age Students. US Department of Education

Aldunate, R. G., Schmidt, K. N., & Herrera, O. (2012). Enabling communication in

emergency response environments. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 12(5), 6380-6394.

Altbach, P. G., Gumport, P. J., & Berdahl, R. O. (2011). American higher education in
the twenty-first century. (3rd Ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Baron, G., & Philbin, J. (2009). Social media in disaster communication: Start with a
drill. Public Relations Tactics, 16(4), 12

Barry, C., A. (1998) Choosing qualitative data analysis software: Atlas and nudist.
Journal of Compared Sociological Research Online 3(3).

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2005). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

Baur, W.M., & McVicar, S.W. (2004). Effects of a campus disaster. Thesis: Marietta
College.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational

impact.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994) Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beaton, R., Stergachis, A., Thompson, J., et al. (2007). Pandemic policy and planning
considerations for universities: Findings from a tabletop exercise. Biosecurity and
Bioterrorism, 5(4),
327–334.

Bergquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy:
Revised and expanded edition of the four cultures of the academy. Jossey-Bass.

Bevan, M. T. (2014). A Method of Phenomenological Interviewing. Qualitative health

research, 24(1), 136-144.

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn
and why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press.

Borodzicz, E., & Van Haperen, K. (2002). Individual and group learning in disaster
simulations. Journal of Contingencies and Disaster Management, 10(3), 139-
147.

118
Bishop Jr, W. E. (2013). Perceptions of participating K-12 educational leaders'
experiences and decisions regarding the crisis caused by the April 27, 2011 tornadoes in
rural Alabama. The University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Brammer, L. M. (1985). The helping relationship: Process and skill (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Breznitz, S. M., & Feldman, M. P. (2012). The engaged university. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 37(2), 139-157.

Briggs, S., M. (2009). Regional interoperability: Making systems connect in complex

disasters. Journal of Trauma: Injury, Injection and Critical Care, 67(10), 88-90.

Burby, R. J. (2006). Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy:
Bringing about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 171-191.

Burns, J. M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burrell, S. M., & Heiselt, A. K. (2012). Presidential Perspectives of Crisis Preparedness

at Christian Higher Education Institutions. Christian Higher Education, 11(4), 260-271.

Byrne, D. (2008) Public safety education and residential occupancy fire. Firehouse,
22(1), 44-48.

California Association of Health Facilities, (n.d.). Understand how California responds

to disasters. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from
[Link]

Cantor, N., & Courant, P., N. (2003). Scrounging for resources: Reflections on the whys
and wherefores of higher education finance. Wiley Periodicals 119(1).

Carlson, S. (2008). Presidents of Liberal-Arts Colleges Discuss Dealing with Disasters

and Other Topics at Annual Meeting: January 7, 2008. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Carman, B. (2003). Campus disaster response: High-speed notification. Community

College Week, 16 (15).

Chun, H. H. (2008). Crisis planning at private residential institutions of higher education

in Northern California. ProQuest.

Clarke, S. (2013). Safety leadership: A meta analytic review of transformational and

transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(1), 22-49

119
Chikoto, G. L., Sadiq, A. A., & Fordyce, E. (2013). Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness
Comparison of Nonprofit, Public, and Private Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 391-410.

Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA
of higher education from the inside out. John Wiley & Sons.

Coombs W.T. (2007). Ongoing disaster communication: Planning, managing, and

responding. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Conchie, S. M., Taylor, P. J., & Donald, I. J. (2012). Promoting safety voice with safety-specific
transformational leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of trust. Journal of
occupational health psychology, 17(1), 105.

Daly, J. (2012, October 30). How Hurricane Sandy Has Affected Colleges . EdTech.

Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership

Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.

DeWitt, S. W. (2007). Dividing the digital divide: Instructional use of computers in social
studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 35(2), 277-304.

Dimas, G., Goula, A., & Pierrakos, G. (2011). Quality issues in higher education: A
multicriteria framework of satisfaction measures. Creative Education, 2, 305-312.

Dolan, T.G. (2006). Few schools are ready to manage a disaster. The Hispanic Outlook in
Higher Education, 1(16), 20-22.

Donner, W., & Rodriguez, H. (2008). Population composition, migration and inequality:
The influence of demographic changes on disaster risk and vulnerability. Social Forces,
87(2), 1089-1114.

Drabek, T. E., & Hoetmer, G. J. (1991). Introduction. In T. E. Drabek & G. J. Hoetmer

(Eds.), Emergency management: Principles and practices for local government.
Washington, DC: International City Management Association.

Duderstadt, J. (2000) Intercollegiate Athletics and the American University. Anne Arbor,
MI. The University of Michigan Press3-12.

Dufrense, R., L. & Clair, J., A. (2008). Moving beyond media feast and frenzy: Imagining
possibilities for hyper-resilience arising from scandalous organizational disaster. Journal
of Behavior and Social Issues 17(2), 40-55.

Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2010). Influences on college students' capacities for socially
responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 525-549.

120
Eckel, Peter D. (2000). The role of shared governance in institutional hard decisions:
enabler or antagonist? The Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 15-39.

Elsubbaugh, S., Fildes, R., & Rose, M.B. (2004). Preparation for disaster management: A
proposed model and empirical evidence. Journal of Contingencies and Disaster
Management, 12(3), 112-127.

Emmett, L., G. (2007) The Duke lacrosse scandal: A case of white privilege in college.
Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education 12(1), 17-36.

Farazmand, A. (2007). Learning from the Katrina crisis: A global and international
perspective with implications for future crisis management. Public Administration
Review, 67(s1), 149-159.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2003). Building a disaster-resistant university

handbook. Retrieved from [Link]

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2007). Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act as Amended and Related Authorities. Sec. 102: Definitions (42
U.S.C. 5122). FEMA 592.

Fillmore, E. P., Ramirez, M., Roth, L., Robertson, M., Atchison, C. G., & Peek-Asa, C.
(2011). After the waters receded: a qualitative study of university official’s disaster
experiences during the Great Iowa Flood of 2008. Journal of community health, 36(2),
307-315

Fortunato, J., A. (2008). Restoring a reputation: The Duke University lacrosse scandal.
Journal of Public Relations Review 34(1), 116-123.

García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012).

Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through
organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research,65(7), 1040-1050.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105

Genova, G. L. (2006). Disaster communication practices at an international relief agency.

Business Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 329-337.

Glendon, A. I., Clarke, S. G., & McKenna, E. (2006). Human safety and risk
management, (2nd ed.) Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public
sector. Brookings Institution Press

121
González, M. R., Castillo, I. M., & González, M. C. (2013). Proactive crisis
communications in public institutions.

Grayson, W. (2011, May 4). Six UA students included in list of tornado deaths. Retrieved July
19, 2014.

Grundy, P. (2013). Structural design for disaster risk reduction. Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering, 14(2), 135.

Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. P. (2007). Emergency management.

Hale, C.D. (2011). Qualitative research designs: Some consequences of disaster which
limit the viability of organizations. Retrieved from
[Link]/../9_Qualitative_Research_Designs.pdf

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of

instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of education,
33(3), 329-352.

Harper, S., & Quave, S. (n.d.). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives
and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York: Ratledge.

Hartley, J., & Rashman, L. (2010). The role of leadership in knowledge creation and
transfer for organizational learning and improvement. Connecting knowledge and
performance in public services: from knowing to doing, 145-172.

Hermann, C. F. (1963) Some consequences of disaster which limit the viability of

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 1(8), 61–82.

Hill Jr, R. H., & Finster, D. C. (2013). Academic leaders create strong safety cultures in
colleges and universities. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 20(5), 27-34.

Hoff, L. A., Hallisey, B. J., & Hoff, M. (2009). People in disaster: Clinical and diversity
perspectives. CRC Press.

Hughes, S. & Shank, M. (2005) Defining scandal in sports: Media and corporate sponsor
perspectives. Sports Marketing Quarterly 41(1), 207-216.

Hunt, J. B., Eisenberg, D., Lu, L., & Gathright, M. (2014). Racial/Ethnic Disparities in
Mental Health Care Utilization among US College Students: Applying the
Institution of Medicine Definition of Health Care Disparities. Academic Psychiatry, 1-7.

Jenkins, M. W. (2008). Exploring factors influencing disaster preparedness among Texas

community colleges with residential students (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral
University, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69, 11. (UMI No. AAT
3338718).

122
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008) Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative,
and Mixed Approaches, 3rd edition. Los Angeles, CA. Sage Publications.

Kapucu, N., & Khosa, S. (2013). Disaster resiliency and culture of preparedness for
university and college campuses. Administration & Society, 0095399712471626.

Kempner, K. (2003) The search for cultural leaders. The Review of Higher Education
26(3), 365-385.

Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the" L" Word in
Higher Education: The Revolution of Research on Leadership: ASHE Higher
Education Report. Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2008). Advancing diversity agendas on campus: Examining
transactional and transformational presidential leadership styles. International
Journal of Leadership Education 11(4), 379-405.

Kiernan, V. (2005) Ready for the next Katrina? Chronicle of Higher Education 52(8),
31-33.

Klann, G. (2003). Disaster leadership using military lessons, organizational experiences

and the power of influence to lessen the impact of chaos on the people you lead.
Greensboro, NC: CCL Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). The leadership challenge (Vol. 3). Jossey-Bass.

Kreps, G., A. (1989). Future directions in disaster research: The role of taxonomy.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 7(1), 215241.

Kupietz, K., & Halifax Community College. (2011). A descriptive study of the
emergency preparedness knowledge of students, faculty, and staff at Halifax Community
College. Emmetsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

Lalonde, C. (2007). Disaster management and organizational development: Towards the

conception of a learning model in disaster management. Organization Development
Journal, 25(1), 17.

Langen, J. M. (2011). Evaluation of adjunct faculty in higher education institutions.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 185-196.

Laska, S., & Morrow, B. H. (2006). Social vulnerabilities and Hurricane Katrina: an
unnatural disaster in New Orleans. Marine Technology Society Journal, 40(4), 16-26.

Lawson, C. J. (2007). Disaster communication. In E. L. Zdziarski, N. W. Dunkel & J. M.

Rollo (Eds.), Campus Disaster Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Planning,
Prevention, Response, and Recovery (pp. 97-120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

123
Lee, P. (2011). The Curious Life of In Loco Parentis at American Universities. Higher
Education in Review, 8, 65-90.

Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthíasdóttir, Á. (2007). Online data collection in academic
research: advantages and limitations. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 38(4),
574-582.

Lindell, M. K. (2013). Disaster studies. Current Sociology, 61(5-6), 797-825.

Lucas, C. J. (2006). American higher education: A history. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Luthar, H., K., DiBattista, R., A., & Gautschi, T. (1997). Perceptions of what the ethical
climate is and what is should be: The role of gender, academic status, and ethical
education. Journal of Business Ethics 16(2), 205-217.

MacDowell, M. A. (2005). Prepared to help when disaster strikes. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, 52(3), B16.

MacTaggart, T. J. (2007). Academic turnarounds: Restoring vitality to challenged

American colleges and universities. Washington, DC:ACE/Praeger

Mangan, K. (2012, October 30). Flooding, Snow, and Power Outages Close Colleges in
Storm's Wake. The Chronicle of Higher Education

Marra, R. M., & Bogue, B. (2006). A critical assessment of online survey tools.
Proceedings of the 2006 Women in Engineering Programs and Advocates Network
Conference

Mathiasen, R., E. (2005). Moral development in fraternity members: A case study. The
College Student Journal, 39(2), 242-256

Mercurio, M. (2010). Athletics and violence against women: a study of relationship.

Proceedings of the Providence College Digital Commons,
[Link]

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception ([Link], Trans.). London:

Routledge.

Mitroff, I. I. (2001). Managing Crises Before They Happen. New York: American
Management Association.

Mitroff, I. I., Diamond, M. A., & Alpaslan, M. C. (2006). How prepared are America's
colleges and universities for major crises?. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 38(1), 61-67.

124
Mitroff, I. & Pauchant, T. (1990). We’re So Big And Powerful Nothing Bad Can Happen
to Us: An Investigation of America’s Disaster Prone Corporations. Birch Lane Press:
New York

Morey, A., I. (2004). Globalization and the emergence of for-profit higher education.
Journal of Higher Education 48(1), 131-150.

Morphew, C. (2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S.

colleges and universities. Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 244-269.

Moustakas, C. (Ed.). (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.

Moynihan, D., P. (2009). The network governance of disaster response: Case studies of
incident command systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
19(4), 895-915.

Mullins, S., Schultz, E., Knupp, K., & Klockow, K. (2012). 638 Public Perception and
Response to Severe Weather: Lessons From the 27 April 2011 Tornado Outbreak Across
N Alabama.

Myer, R. A., James, R. K., & Moulton, P. (2010). Or a Tornado or Earthquake Drill.
This is Not a Fire Drill: Disaster Intervention and Prevention on College Campuses,
John Wiley& Sons: Hoboken, NJ.

Netten, N. and van Someren, M. (2011), Improving Communication in Disaster

Management by Evaluating the Relevance of Messages. Journal of Contingencies and
Disaster Management, 19(2).75–85.

Nguyen, N. & LeBlanc, G. (2001) Image and reputation of higher education institutions
in students’ retention decisions. Journal of Educational Management 15(6) 303-311.

Northouse, P. G. (2011). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. SAGE

Publications, Incorporated.

O'Neill, D., & Fry, M. (2013). The Grief Group: A University and Hospice
Collaboration. Journal of College Student Development, 54(4), 430-432.

Oseguera, L., & Malagon, M. C. (2011). For-profit colleges and universities and the
Latina/o students who enroll in them. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(1), 66-
91.

Palliyaguru, R., Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2014). Constructing a holistic approach
to disaster risk reduction: the significance of focusing on vulnerability reduction.
Disasters, 38(1), 45-61.

125
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third
Decade of Research. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley. 10475 Crosspoint Blvd,
Indianapolis, IN 46256.

Palmer, R., & Gasman, M. (2008). It takes a village to raise a child: The role of social
capital in promoting academic success for African American men at a black
college. Journal of College Student Development 49(1), 52-70.

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and
effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 5-10.

Parrish, R.B. (2005). The Duke Lacrosse Case. Lexington, KY: Josey-Bass.

Roberts, P. S. (2013). Discrimination in a Disaster Agency’s Security Culture. Administration &

Society, 45(4), 387-419.

Paterson, & E. L. Zdziarski (Eds.), Disaster management: Responding from the heart.
Washington, DC: NASPA.

Paton, D., Smith, L., & Violanti, J. (2000). Disaster response: Risk, vulnerability and
resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management, 9(3), 173 – 180.

Pennings, J. E., & Grossman, D. B. (2008). Responding to crises and disasters: The role
of risk attitudes and risk perceptions. Disasters, 32(3), 434-448.

Perry, D. C., Taylor, M., & Doerfel, M. L. (2003). Internet-based communication in

disaster management. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(1), 206-232.

Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2003). Preparedness for emergency response: Guidelines
for the emergency planning process. Disasters, 27(4), 336-350.
doi:10.1111/j.0361-3666.2003.00336.x

Petak, W.J. (1985) Emergency management: A challenge for public administration.

Public Administration Review, 45 (1), 3-7.

Reynolds, B., & Seeger, M. W. (2005). Disaster and emergency risk communication as an
integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10(1), 43-55.

Richard, J., Singer, J. D., Willett, J. B., & Light, R. J. (2009). By design: Planning research on
higher education. Harvard University Press.

Rodriguez, R. B. (2008). Book Review by Dr. Reuben B. Rodriguez, Associate Provost

and Dean of Student Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University. [Review of the book
Campus disaster management: A comprehensive guide to planning, prevention, response,
and recovery.] NASPA Journal, 45, (1), 168-172.

126
Rød, S. K., Botan, C., & Holen, A. (2012). Risk communication and the willingness to
follow evacuation instructions in a natural disaster. Health, Risk & Society, 14(1), 87-99.

Rollo, J. M., and Zdziarski, E. L. (2007). The Impact of Disaster. In E. L. Zdziarski and
Associates (Eds.), Campus disaster management: Comprehensive guide to planning,
prevention response, and recovery. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student

population that is no longer nontraditional. Peer Review, 13(1), 26-29

Saari, S. (2005). A Bolt from the blue: Coping with disasters and acute traumas. London,
UK and Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley.

Sadiq, A. A., & Weible, C. M. (2010). Obstacles and disaster risk reduction: Survey of
Memphis organizations. Natural Hazards Review, 11(3), 110-117.

Schachter, R. (2006). Coming Back from Katrina: More Than a Year Later, New Orleans'
Institutions of Higher Ed-And Their Leaders-Are Recovering, Adapting, and Reinventing
Themselves. University Business, 9(11).

Schneider, S. K. (2011). Dealing with Disaster: Public Management in Disaster

Situations. Fairfax, VA: The Public Entity Risk Institute.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy:
Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smith, G. (2011). Planning for post-disaster recovery: A review of the United States
disaster assistance framework. Fairfax, VA: The Public Entity Risk Institute.

Smits, S. J., & Ally, N. E. (2003). "Thinking the unthinkable" - Leadership's role in
creating behavioral readiness for disaster management. Competitiveness Review,
13(1), 1-23.

Spokane, A. R., Inman, A. G., Weatherford, R. D., Davidson, A. K., & Straw, R. (2011).
Ecologically based, culturally concordant responding following disasters: The counseling
psychologist’s role. The Counseling Psychologist

Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics, 2012. NCES 2014-015.
National Center for Education Statistics.

Strachota, E. (2006, October). The use of survey research to measure student satisfaction
in online courses. Presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult,
Continuing, and Community Education, University of Missouri-St. Louis, Mo.

Strange, C. C. (2004), Measuring up: Defining and assessing outcomes of character in

college. New Directions for Institutional Research 1(1), 25–36. doi: 10.1002/ir.107

127
Tierney, K., J. (2006). Recent developments in U.S. homeland security policies and their
implications for the management of extreme events: Handbook of disaster research. New
York, NY: Springer.

Tierney, K. J. (2012) Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions.

Annual Review of Environment and Resources 1(37), 341-363.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2003). Homeland Security Presidential

Directive-5. Signed by President Bush on February 28, 2003.

US Department of Education (2007). Updating and maintaining school emergency

management plans: Helpful hints for school emergency management. Proquest 2(3)
Available from: [Link]

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Action guide for emergency management at

institutions of higher education.

Ventura, C. G. (2010). An examination of hurricane emergency preparedness planning at

institutions of higher learning of the gulf south region post hurricane Katrina. (Order No.
3416311, The University of Southern Mississippi). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
97.

Watson, P. G., Loffredo, V. J., & McKee, J. C. (2011). When a natural disaster occurs:
lessons learned in meeting students' needs. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(6), 362-
369.

Waugh, W. L., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency
management. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 131-140.

Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis
process. Journal of Qualitative Social Research, 3(2).

White, C. (2011). Social Media, Disaster communication and emergency management:

utilizing web 2. 0 technologies. CRC Press Llc.

Williams, C. (2013). Mgmt student edition. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Wright, H. N. (2003). The new guide to disaster and trauma counseling. Regal
Publications.

Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and

disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software
packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication,
10(3).

128
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods: Applied social research
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zdziarski, E. L. (2006). Crisis in the context of higher education. Crisis management:

Responding from the heart, 3-24.

Zdziarski, E. L., Dunkel, N. W., & Rollo, J. M. (2007). Campus crisis management: A
comprehensive guide to planning, prevention, response, and recovery. John Wiley &
Sons.

Zemsky, R. (2009). Making reform work: The case for transforming American higher education.
Rutgers University Press.

129
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Joshua Reihm Coveleski was born and raised in Dover, Delaware. He holds a Bachelor’s degree

in History from Duke University and Master of Educational Leadership Degree from the

University of Delaware. This dissertation concludes a PhD in Higher Education with a

specialization in Public Administration and Emergency Management from the Department of

Educational Leadership and Policy Studies from Florida State University. Currently, Joshua is

employed by Rescue Me, LLC as a Public Safety Consultant and Grant Writer. Joshua is also

working on publication projects regarding public safety best practices for emergency planning

and response efforts. In his free time, Joshua tutors and conducts lacrosse camps for middle and

high school athletes.

130