Communications in crisis: the politics of information-sharing in the UK’s Covid-19 response

IF 1.8 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Critical Studies on Security Pub Date : 2021-05-04 DOI:10.1080/21624887.2021.1978647
D. Sage, Chris R. Zebrowski, Nina Jorden
{"title":"Communications in crisis: the politics of information-sharing in the UK’s Covid-19 response","authors":"D. Sage, Chris R. Zebrowski, Nina Jorden","doi":"10.1080/21624887.2021.1978647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since its restructuring at the turn of the century, UK Civil Contingencies has promoted information-circulation as the primary means of binding together multi-agency emergency response assemblages. Breaking from the top-down hierarchical diagram of governance which characterised Civil Defence, a more agile and resilient approach to emergency response was envisioned to address the forms of threat anticipated in the 21 century (Zebrowski 2016). Key to this new design was the role of information circulation in enhancing collaboration within and across responder agencies. Enhancing quality and access to information would permit decision making power within emergency events to be devolved to local responders. Rather than imposing command and control from the top-down, Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) would permit emergency responses to self-organise from the bottom-up: promising to improve the speed and efficiency of emergency responses (Zebrowski 2019), while also inspiring myriad critiques of the professed ‘neoliberal’ responsibilization of emergency response. Viewed from our ongoing qualitative research within the UK’s Covid-19 response it is clear that this informational vision of emergency response has fundamentally broken down. The calamitous management of the response in the UK has been defined by centralised, top-down decision-making and serious impediments to the free flow of information between different levels of government and emergency responders. While such propensities are far from a new aspect of UK resilience practice (Sage, Fussey, and Dainty 2015), their occurrence has intensified and expanded during Covid-19. This is perhaps all the more notable given the UK’s efforts over the past decade to position itself at the vanguard of a professed new resilience paradigm of ICT, centring around the primary object of analysis of our research and analysis here: a collaborative emergency response platform called ResilienceDirect. In this short contribution, we reflect briefly on how this informational vision of emergency response has been undermined within the UK response to Covid-19. We argue that the reemergence of command-and-control approaches to emergency governance has marginalised the role of local responders and undermined the effectiveness of the UK’s Covid-19 response. Our analysis is informed by interviews we have conducted with 41 emergency response professionals involved in the UK Covid-19 response between August and December 2020. A concluding section will reflect on the implications of this analysis for emergency policy and understandings of neoliberal resilience and security.","PeriodicalId":29930,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies on Security","volume":"9 1","pages":"146 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies on Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2021.1978647","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Since its restructuring at the turn of the century, UK Civil Contingencies has promoted information-circulation as the primary means of binding together multi-agency emergency response assemblages. Breaking from the top-down hierarchical diagram of governance which characterised Civil Defence, a more agile and resilient approach to emergency response was envisioned to address the forms of threat anticipated in the 21 century (Zebrowski 2016). Key to this new design was the role of information circulation in enhancing collaboration within and across responder agencies. Enhancing quality and access to information would permit decision making power within emergency events to be devolved to local responders. Rather than imposing command and control from the top-down, Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) would permit emergency responses to self-organise from the bottom-up: promising to improve the speed and efficiency of emergency responses (Zebrowski 2019), while also inspiring myriad critiques of the professed ‘neoliberal’ responsibilization of emergency response. Viewed from our ongoing qualitative research within the UK’s Covid-19 response it is clear that this informational vision of emergency response has fundamentally broken down. The calamitous management of the response in the UK has been defined by centralised, top-down decision-making and serious impediments to the free flow of information between different levels of government and emergency responders. While such propensities are far from a new aspect of UK resilience practice (Sage, Fussey, and Dainty 2015), their occurrence has intensified and expanded during Covid-19. This is perhaps all the more notable given the UK’s efforts over the past decade to position itself at the vanguard of a professed new resilience paradigm of ICT, centring around the primary object of analysis of our research and analysis here: a collaborative emergency response platform called ResilienceDirect. In this short contribution, we reflect briefly on how this informational vision of emergency response has been undermined within the UK response to Covid-19. We argue that the reemergence of command-and-control approaches to emergency governance has marginalised the role of local responders and undermined the effectiveness of the UK’s Covid-19 response. Our analysis is informed by interviews we have conducted with 41 emergency response professionals involved in the UK Covid-19 response between August and December 2020. A concluding section will reflect on the implications of this analysis for emergency policy and understandings of neoliberal resilience and security.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
危机中的沟通:英国应对Covid-19的信息共享政治
自世纪之交进行重组以来,联合王国民事应急事务促进了信息流通,将其作为将多机构应急响应组合联系在一起的主要手段。突破了民防的自上而下的治理等级图,设想了一种更灵活、更有弹性的应急响应方法,以应对21世纪预期的各种威胁(Zebrowski 2016)。这种新设计的关键是信息流通在加强应急机构内部和之间的协作方面的作用。提高信息的质量和获取途径将使紧急事件中的决策权下放给当地应急人员。信息和通信技术(ICT)将允许应急响应自下而上地自我组织,而不是自上而下地施加命令和控制:承诺提高应急响应的速度和效率(Zebrowski 2019),同时也激发了对所谓的“新自由主义”应急响应责任的无数批评。从我们正在进行的英国Covid-19应对定性研究来看,很明显,这种应急响应的信息愿景已经从根本上崩溃了。在英国,灾难性的应对管理被定义为集中的、自上而下的决策,严重阻碍了不同级别的政府和应急响应人员之间的信息自由流动。虽然这种倾向远不是英国弹性实践的新方面(Sage, Fussey, and Dainty, 2015),但在Covid-19期间,它们的发生已经加剧和扩大。考虑到英国在过去十年中努力将自己定位为公认的ICT新弹性范式的先锋,这一点可能更加值得注意,该范式围绕着我们在这里的研究和分析的主要分析对象:一个名为ResilienceDirect的协作应急响应平台。在这篇简短的文章中,我们简要回顾了在英国应对Covid-19的过程中,这种应急响应的信息愿景是如何被破坏的。我们认为,指挥和控制方法在应急治理中的重新出现,使地方应急人员的作用边缘化,破坏了英国应对Covid-19的有效性。我们的分析基于我们在2020年8月至12月期间对41名参与英国Covid-19应对的应急响应专业人员进行的采访。最后一节将反映这一分析对紧急政策和对新自由主义弹性和安全的理解的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Chair in Entebbe Things never remain the same Poetics of silence Not just a hashtag Your security, our territories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1