GRANDE Final Report
Introduction
When natural processes and society intersect, daily life can be disrupted with impacts ranging from minor delays and interruptions to severe impacts to people and property caused by major disruptive events. Disruptive events, such as major storms, earthquakes, wildfires, and volcanic eruptions, negatively impactful on university education and research activity (Beggan, 2010; Houston, 2017; Wright et al., 2013) and particularly impactful on communities and institutions that serve socially vulnerable populations (Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2022). Despite the disruptive nature of these events, these risks to society also provide contextual opportunities to engage students, develop curricular materials, and expand research opportunities not only for impacted institutions, but for the geoscience community at large. With increased frequency and intensity of various disruptive processes, understanding the experiences of how geoscience academic programs have responded to natural disruptive events can provide insights for improving response and recovery planning to potential disasters, both within the geosciences and beyond. In addition, this understanding can provide private and public institutions with the capability to plan efficiently for the challenges and opportunities associated with natural hazards using new pedagogical approaches and research from within the geosciences.
The project is structured across three main arcs that document the impacts from natural hazards on geoscience academic departments, explore how departments used these experiences to enhance pedagogy and research, and assess the forward-looking perspectives of the geoscience community on how the discipline will build resiliency in the face of future natural disruptions. The project also highlights the challenges and opportunities which arose from these events and identifies patterns and particular examples among geoscience departments for student engagement, pedagogical changes, and new research opportunities.
Background and Research Context
Geoscience is the core intellectual discipline that provides the expertise and knowledge of the causes, impacts, and risks of natural hazard events. However, geoscience departments, like all other units of an academic institution, must adapt to changing local and regional environmental conditions during the recovery phase of a natural disruptive event. Given their expertise on the subject, however, geoscience departments also can lead the way in adaptation and mitigation, and leveraging the experiences from the recovery and rebuilding phases of the disruptive event for enhanced educational and research opportunities. Even though the constructive opportunity exists, the nature and experiences of geoscience programs’ responses to impacts is not uniformly understood across the spectrum of natural disruptive events.
Furthermore, a review of past responses can lead to the development of a knowledge base of best practices, prospective opportunities, and community-wide awareness of ways the geoscience discipline needs to prepare for a future that is predicted to have increasing frequency and severity of natural disaster events.
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the Christchurch earthquake, a suite of literature (Beggan, 2010; Wright and Wordsworth, 2013; Houston, 2017) was published assessing the broad impacts on higher education from these natural disasters. One consistent theme from the research was that universities responded by clear delineation of responsibilities across the institution to provide some level of continuity of operations. University administration focused on revenue continuity, physical plant and legal issues, as well as the general safety of faculty, staff, and students, while faculty were expected to maintain continuity of instruction. In the immediate aftermath of a natural disruption, the continuity of education is recognized as paramount for the health and welfare of the institution, with the primary focus on limiting the long-term financial liabilities through either the loss of students or the loss of revenue above and beyond the direct costs of recovery.
Sustained financial and operational impacts can lead to students and faculty leaving the institution if the situation is viewed as substandard. This possibility can lead to the reduction in perceived value and further loss of students, faculty, and staff at the institution that further compounds recovery. For example, Beggan (2010) compared two universities, Lamar University and McNeese State University, which had substantially distinct differences in response and recovery following Hurricane Rita, despite being similar in size and having comparable amounts of damage from the hurricane. Lamar University implemented a plan that led to a rapid recovery following the disaster, while McNeese State University experienced a delay in response efforts, in part due to statutory requirements related to recovery efforts, which resulted in extended impacts and a longer recovery time.
Natural disruptive events can provide opportunities for new pedagogical approaches, yet these types of events have also been documented as substantively negative impacts on education attainment across levels and societies (GAO, 2022; Onigbinde, 2018). In the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake in 2010, Wright and Wordsworth (2013) noted that in a survey of students at the University of Canterbury, many students reported a negative response to faculty assigning independent assignments associated with the earthquake event. The negative response was partially associated with the students’ desire to move beyond their traumatic experiences. Also noted as a major factor in students’ negative reactions was frustration resulting from working on assignments that were orthogonal to the course topic. Absent in the analysis was whether these concerns were shared by geoscience students. The response at the university raises the following questions: Does curricular engagement of a recent disruptive and potentially traumatizing event elicit a negative response in geoscience students when it’s within their focus of study? Is there any evidence that by better understanding the phenomenon they just experienced, students gain a sense of control or mastery that may address some of the trauma noted by Wright and Wordsworth (2013)?
The literature on disaster impacts to higher education consistently identifies that continuity of education invariably falls to the faculty to implement themselves and is most effective when well-coordinated within the scope of a department (Beggan, 2010; Wright and Wordsworth, 2013). Geoscience departments represent a unique nexus as they are often the disciplinary area with expertise in the processes that culminated in the impacts to the institution such as flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, among others. As geoscience programs are dependent on the vitality of the organizational unit, usually a department that hosts the program, do these natural disruptive events lead to departments shrinking through loss of faculty and students or do they grow and evolve in response to the stress? Are there critical levels of impact that predict the trajectory of departments?
As organizations, geoscience departments are constituted by the people who work within the institutional unit. With expectations of future increases in the frequency and intensity of disruptive events, what are the perspectives of early career faculty and graduate students on the preparedness of geoscience programs and the geosciences in general for those future risks? Do these expectations alter the priorities for a geoscience department in its operation and strategic direction? Also, with these perspectives of the emerging cohort of geoscience leadership, what are the priorities for the discipline to be resilient to natural disruptions in the future? A unique position exists for the geosciences to leverage these processes as teachable moments and as opportunities for research, as well as the chance to lead the broader communities of their institutions, academia, and society to a more resilient future.
We analyzed the scope of impact from natural disasters on geoscience departments within the United States and how specific departments have responded to these events as organizations, as educational entities, and as principals in the science of these natural disruptive processes. Recent experiences with a different type of disruptive event, the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrated remarkable resilience and creativity among geoscience faculty and departments to adapt instructional formats and maintain instructional continuity despite rapid institutional shifts during the recovery phase (Burmeister et al., 2020; Abercrombie et al., 2021; Gielstra et al., 2021; Hamilton and Yelderman, 2021; Keane and Gonzales, 2021; Koy, 2021). Some of this flexibility may be the result of lessons learned from prior natural disruptions, while some of it may be inherent to the nature of the geosciences and the commitment of the faculty to the education of their students. The opportunity for lessons learned by the geoscience discipline and innovations by departments and faculty can be used in modeling potential mitigation of impacts and unique learning opportunities within higher education, as well as across all formal education levels. Identifying the universe of responses is the first step towards developing systemic approaches and strategies for advancing educational resilience in increasingly disruptive environments.
Approach
This project examines three critical areas related to identifying the scope of impacts of natural disturbances on geoscience programs in the United States since the year 2000, assessing how geoscience academic departments have leveraged experience with natural disaster events to enhance pedagogical and research opportunities, and evaluating the forward looking perspectives of the geoscience community on how the discipline will build resiliency in the face of future natural disruptions and how it will contribute to the resilience of institutional and civic communities directly impacted by these events.
The project is structured across three major work packages (WP) that examine these research questions:
WP1: Quantitatively assess how declared disasters impacted geoscience education and research
- What is the frequency and intensity of natural disaster events impacting geoscience academic departments?
- Is there a threshold of frequency and/or severity of impact that causes changes to operations, infrastructure, pedagogy, research, and student engagement?
- Are there critical levels of impact that can predict the trajectory of departments?
- Do natural disruptive events lead to the reduction in capacity of departments through loss of faculty and students, or do departments grow and evolve in response to the impacts?
WP2: Identify specific operational and pedagogical outcomes that evolved from disruptive events
- What challenges and opportunities have arisen from these events?
- What new ideas and research opportunities for geoscience departments have arisen as a result of natural disruptive events?
- Are there patterns and particular exemplars for student engagement, pedagogical changes, and new research opportunities?
- What specific actions and postures by geoscience departments present opportunities to create value in the geoscience community and help mitigate future impacts from disruptive events?
- Does curricular engagement of a recent disruptive and potentially traumatizing event elicit a negative response in geoscience students when it is within their focus of study? Is there any evidence that by better understanding the phenomenon they just experienced, students gain a sense of control or mastery that may address some of the trauma noted by Wright and Wordsworth (2013)?
- Is there a transfer of knowledge in preparation and planning for managing the impacts of disruptive events to previously unaffected departments?
WP3: Capture the attitudes and forward perspectives of students and early-career geoscientists on impacts to the geosciences by disruptive events
- What are the perspectives of early career faculty and graduate students on the preparedness of geoscience programs and the geosciences in general for the expected future risks? Do these expectations color their priorities for a department in its operation and strategic direction?
- How does this emerging cohort of geoscience leadership determine the priorities that will support the discipline in its resiliency to future natural disruptions and its contribution to the resilience of their associated institutional and civic communities?
Key Results
-
Geoscience departments, as experts in natural hazards, were expected to lead in adaptation, mitigation, and education related to natural hazard events—but this has not materialized broadly despite the increase in natural hazard events since 2000.
-
All U.S. geoscience departments experienced potentially disruptive natural hazard events between 2000–2019, contradicting initial expectations of localized impact. Despite widespread exposure, there was little corresponding increase in hazard-related research, curriculum development, or shifts in academic focus or faculty specialization. Furthermore, hazard-related research comprised only ~4% of NSF-funded geoscience projects from 2000–2019, indicating a low priority in national investment in hazard research.
-
Professional engagement with natural hazards often occurs primarily through exposure during academic coursework, but this practice remains inconsistent and often unfunded. Additionally, graduate and undergraduate students engage with hazards through research, fieldwork, and independent studies, though much of this is through course assignments and student projects. Furthermore, while early-career scientists envision greater use of AI and interdisciplinary collaboration, actual implementation, especially as it relates to hazard research, remains limited.
-
Natural disasters generally cause brief disruptions (days to weeks), unlike the prolonged disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing their perceived urgency for long-term change or action. Furthermore, hazard resilience within academic institutions is often driven by the institution, rather than at the departmental level, again usually leaving academic departments disconnected from engagement with hazard planning and preparation. In addition, despite their expertise, geoscientists do not integrate their knowledge of hazards into their personal lives, but rather value salary and a low crime-risk community over hazard risk when choosing jobs and relocating, a behavior that is similar to non-geoscientists.
-
Although natural hazards inspire interest and research, engagement remains underdeveloped without dedicated, sustained funding to translate potential into action. The geosciences can provide expertise to build societal resilience to hazards; however, the discipline requires targeted investment to catalyze research, instruction, and cross-sector collaboration.
References
Abercrombie, M., Macdonald Jr., J., Rotz, R., Barbosa, A., Muller, J., Savarese, M. 2021. Unexpected Benefits Realized from Necessary Reconfiguration of Field Course Due to COVID-19. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 53(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2021AM-367185
Beggan, D.M. 2010. The impact of Hurricane Rita on an academic institution: Lessons learned. Disasters, 34(1), pp.93-111. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01116.x.
Burmeister, K.C., Atchison, C.L., Egger, A.E., Rademacher, L.K., Ryker, K., & Tikoff, B. 2020. Meeting the Challenge – How the Geoscience Community Provided Robust Online Capstone Experiences in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 52(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2020AM-358012
Corritore, M., Goldberg A., Srivastava, S.B. 2020. The New Analytics of Culture. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/01/the-new-analytics-of-culture.
Gielstra, D., Moorman, L., Cerney, D., Cerveny, N., Gielstra, J. 2021. GeoEPIC: Innovating a Solution to Implement Virtual Field Experiences for Education in the Time of COVID-19 and the Post-Pandemic Era. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(7). doi: 10.33423/jhetp.v21i7.4481.
Government Accountability Office. 2022. Disaster Recovery – School Districts on Socially Vulnerable Communities Faced Heighted Challenges after Recent Natural Disasters. (GAO Publication No. 22- 104606). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hamilton, W.L., Yelderman, J.C. 2021. Lessons Learned from the Classroom, Lab and Field Research During COVID-19 Restrictions with Application to Future Geoscience Teaching at Baylor University. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 53(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2021AM-367429.
Houston, M.J. 2017. The experiences of faculty and staff at academic institutions preparing themselves for academic continuity after a disaster: a phenomenological study. In Proceedings of Academics World 78th International Conference.
Keane, C., Gonzales, L. 2021. Macroscopic Impact Trends from the Pandemic on Geoscience Programs. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 53(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2021AM-367150.
Koy, K. 2021. Lessons Learned: COVID-19 and Rethinking Non-Majors Geoscience Courses at a Regional Four-Year University. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 53(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2021AM-366759
Mello, F. West, C. 2020. What has Happened when Campuses Shut Down for Other Disasters? A Coronavirus Case Study. Hechinger Report. 4 May 2020. Accessed 3 Feb 2022 from https://hechingerreport.org/what-has-happened-when-campuses-shut-down-for-other-disasters-acoronavirus-case-study/.
Onigbinde, L. 2018. The Impacts of Natural Disasters on Educational Attainment: Cross-Country Evidence from Macro Data. Master’s Theses, 1078. https://repository.usfca.edu/thes/1078.
Texas Historical Commission. 2004. Fundamentals of Oral History – Texas Preservation Guidelines. Texas Historical Commission. Austin, TX. pp.16.
Wright, S., Wordsworth, R. 2013. Teaching through 10,000 Earthquakes: Constructive Practice for Instructors in a Post-Disaster Environment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(2), pp.144-153.
Table of Contents
