Critical Analysis Of The Article On Homeland Security And Emergency Management

Introduction

The following critique evaluates the article in review titled: Homeland security risk and preparedness in police agencies: The insignificance of actual risk factors, by Haynes and Giblin which elaborates the readiness of our homeland security. The author’s of this article, Haynes and Giblin, infer and examine the intricate plans of action in policing and response towards alleged threats since September 11, 2001 and the adjustments to such devastating impacts in the functions of homeland security.

The shocking effects on that catastrophic day inspired the authors to compare similar incidents versus the readiness of law enforcement and the response engagements in effect. Subsequently, police departments are leading the front lines on the war on terrorism in our homeland. This study’s course of action began with a concerned doctoral student by the name of Mellissa Hayes and her professor at the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Professor Matthew Giblins was captivated in defining police response to environmental influences and how the risk factors were determined amongst the law enforcement agencies to conclude the statistical outlook from empirical data and contingency theory applied in the process. Their thesis statements focus on the lack of measured standards that associate with the risks at hand to inform the law enforcing agencies the correct response methods for the projected threat.

Summary of the Study

The directed analysis foresees to emulate anticipated risk factors for homeland security and the response effects to those threats. Moreover, the examiners hope to establish a statistic, which captures the weight of the hazard and manifests a quantified predictability for future perils

Since the September 11 drastic blows our country received, it became evident that our law enforcement agencies and first responders needed restructuring. That day manifested a tragic event, which signaled needed change; the police departments are expected to be in the frontline fighting terrorism. Therefore, we must train our force to take head on terrorist activities in the future. Based on the researcher’s views, the collected statistical data obtained over the years may reveal substantial evidence that might predict such homeland security incidents in the future. Various trained methods have been implemented to combat such threats since that day, while appropriated funding became priority as the federal government has been on the forefront in supporting the police to achieve preparedness. Moreover, to build a professional qualified force, grants and machinery were introduced in aid to provide homeland security adequate assets in supporting the efforts. Since then, researchers attempted to standardize threat levels and evaluate the casual factors behind the disparities. According to the Homeland Security Council, many researchers referred to empirical studies and contingency frameworks to document their claims as these agendas reflect constant response to environmental issues. Theses administrative goals based on empirical studies have consistently found a relationship between risks and police homeland security activities.

Numerous studies have attempted to outline the occurrences previously discussed about threats to our country. Therefore, the authors presume an abundant amount of supporting data, which display police engagement in various actions to alleviate the presented risks. These studies also demonstrate that Local Police departments mediate information with state police agencies, which in turn provide specialized homeland security training. Homeland security policy is applied by a vast array of agencies which researchers relate the contingency theory to factor that most organizations are dynamic. Due to vigorous elements in their line of work, many agencies relate to contingency to establish the likelihood of an event and determine an appropriated response in order to successfully mitigate the risks. Donaldson explains the differences between contingency theory and SARFIT as disequilibrium where an organization remains fit temporarily, until the surplus resources from the fit-based higher performance produce expansion therefore causing adaptation in order to balance the odds and regain the fitness levels. This translates in to the police departments and the risk involved. This approach has been effectively implemented in the training and actions of homeland security as the statistics do correlate and draw out specifics in certain threat areas. Even so, the organizational risks are inevitable and may produce alterations in readiness.

Haynes and Giblin also present the best ways to develop a calculation method is by engaging the threat vulnerability consequences (TVC) model, which requires the combination of threats, vulnerability, and consequences. Despite the models benefits, it still experiences complications in its operation as it cogitates goals, motives and terrorist capabilities. Subsequently, the objective risk is broadly categorized as a factor of vulnerability. Such exposures can categorize societal groups and label population possessing high threat index thresholds. These rankings can pinpoint populations in specific physical locations. Such vulnerabilities are considered the property of the built environment that makes an area more prone to harm.

Alternative studies also used empirical approaches in researching exposures and their effects and relationships on perceived risks, however researchers are eager to ruminate over the impartial risk factors discussed in Roberts, 2012 study. The study approach explores gathered data over an extensive timeframe with the main source being conducted by the national surveys of the government statistical department. This study meters homeland security preparedness and perceived the risk of terrorism. The frame encapsulated by the research revises the 2004 census of state and local law enforcement agencies which is a used as a measuring tool to determine organizations comprising the law enforcement population demographics.

Haynes and Giblin established the depended variable to reveal preparedness. Therefore, homeland security agencies apply these stages in prevention, response, and recovery episodes. In their evaluation, the independent variable is set to a total of thirty-five separate indicators after which they revise against the TVC model in developing the independent variables. The items are inputted into the analysis in bits according to theoretical expectations. According to Haynes and Giblin, their outcomes imply a positive relationship in their findings. They specify that homeland security display’s a positive relation between perceived risks of a terrorist attack and the preparedness of the motherland security.

Critiquing the Article

The area of research grasps attention, as we tend to generally seek some form of security and reassurance however, the hypothesis seems to neglect certain descriptive aspects regardless how well it’s documented. The research does little to make the reader grasp the concepts of the argument from the thesis statement. Moreover, the twofold thesis statement presented by the authors creates misunderstanding and could confuse the audience on the main focus addressed in the study. The format presented muddles a reader’s comprehension and may question whether the risk measures determine the predictions for police practices or whether it is the subjective measures of risk about preparedness being considered. The introduction sets the stage and should make clear and concise short thesis statements that grab the audience’s attention and pinpoint the exact topic the research will address.

The authors set well-mannered tone in the beginning elaborating on the proceedings and circumstances, which lead to investigate the study. However, they seem to address other previous similar studies to define the reason behind their choice to pursue the area of study. The audience may question what factors pushed for the research and expect to know why it was conducted. Surely, the authors mention the tragic September 11 events however, this instance alone wouldn’t necessarily be the driving factor and lacks additional supporting reasons. Additionally, Haynes and Giblin are in fact conducting research on a repeat area of empirical study and comparable results. In this instance the authors tend to lack inspiration as they rest their study on an area of already obtained and interpreted data, which doesn’t reveal anything new for the audience. This redundant investigation has been evaluated in several cases before and misfires to enlighten the audience with new figures. Still, the research upholds dynamics by using different methods to separate them for the previous completed research; the literature review is lacking. The authors haven’t used the dynamics the study requires to validate a considerable review of the preexisting works. It seems to create this absence of confidence in conducting the research and providing the analyses. Additionally, the researchers omit to identify a gap while theorizing their own findings. Also, the study displays the outflow of objective theory employed by Roberts, 2012 study without demonstrating the relevance of the theory in the current study.

Involving the study, Haynes and Giblin seem to establish weak arguments in presenting factual claims that don’t weigh in on the thesis they desire to pursue. One example, which displays this, is the elaboration on the multiple variables used in the SoVI index-based method on empirical studies. In continuation, they continue to link vulnerabilities to various myriads and carry out the stated facts, but may leave the reader wondering where the variables relate with the vulnerabilities. Moreover, the case is presented with a high level of technicality, which may not translate well to the average reader. It was noticed that the content and phrases in the introduction of the study differ the discussion portion. In another example, the scholars state that existing evidence lacks dimension in the risk area as the perceived levels of risk were mostly estimated by the researchers and the government therefore, its probability is not concrete. They also suggest that previous studies had strangely surveyed threats. The applied measures of risk awareness were also based on single individual basis rather then groups or masses. These aspects mentioned above, cloud the study in the discussion segment as the authors use the study to support their theory however, refer insufficiencies back to existing research to conclude the desired result. The mentioned inflicting impressions leave a unclear perception to the readers, as the study approach is misleading. In reference, the researcher chooses to use data collected by another source.

Another negative factor deduced, was that the scholars’ actions are hypocritical for criticizing previous research for failing to meet a standard to gauge risks. A further noticed observation is the confusion produced by the authors as they discuss various sections of the paper. The methodology excerpt should present the methods used to acquire, measure and analyzing data. The introduction should present the objective and the approaches utilized to conduct the study and the hypothesis of the survey. It is strange to identify a statement, which intently links to the argument in the methodology fragment. As soon as the researchers identify they will reference the national survey data in their study it seems they propose a thesis thereafter. The research also hints the implementation of the survey outcomes from the government study figures conducted after September 11, 2011. Haynes and Giblin also outline the sample frame from 2004 as the study proceeds to identify the dependent and independent variables and how they apply to the calculations. This unmerited application is not welcomed into deceiving the reader as the researchers adopt already determined study statistics. This assumption was made due to the attitude in which the authors claim the data as their own work. The misinformation the scholars produced derived from the method of their dispute in which they classify their methods and model. Haynes and Giblin want the audience interaction with the study on a personal level however, they present coexisting study material. The variables pose exaggerated reasoning as the authors use a plethora of words defining the scope and their methods. Indeed the researchers are analytical transposing the data from the survey, which garners a positive aspect to the research but the direct reference to the sources may not comply with the code of research. By citing supporting evidence questions their approach in conducting research.

Conclusion

Haynes and Giblin’s research article pursues to resolute homeland security readiness in the critical review conducted above in order to develop defensive security measures anticipating future terrorist threats such as September, 11. The addressed article attempted to find a link amongst apparent homeland security risks and the preparedness adaptation in response to the occurred incidents. While the studies thesis makes strong arguments and presents factual evidence, the quality of the survey questions the use of previously cited study material from other surveys, regardless if used to strengthen the author’s evidence. Moreover, the survey takes a generalized point of view rather then a critical analysis and the author fails to address the topics with independent concepts. No matter how much Haynes and Giblin’s base their study on the proposed void of risk analysis area, the research never validates or reports the gap. Nevertheless, the researchers’ methods in conducting the survey are respectable with a sense of resolution. Yet, they disappoint when addressing their independent work with recycled statistics that compensate rather then produce new enlightening material.

References

1. Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from: http://dx. doi. org/10. 4135/9781452229249
2. Falcone, D. N. , Wells, L. E. , & Weisheit, R. A. (2002). The small-town police department. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25(2), 371–384. Retrieved from: <a>https://doi. org/10. 1108/13639510210429419</a>
3. Gerber, B. J. , Cohen, D. B. , Cannon, B. , Patterson, D. , & Stewart, K. (2005). On the front line: American cities and the challenge of homeland security preparedness. Urban Affairs Review, 41(2), 182–210Retrieved from: <a>https://asu. pure. elsevier. com/en/publications/on-the-front-line-american-cities-and-the-challenge-of-homeland-s</a>
4. Hollenstein, K. (2005). Reconsidering the risk assessment concept: Standardizing the impact description as a building block for vulnerability assessment. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences, 5, 301–307. Retrieved from: <a>http://citeseerx. ist. psu. edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10. 1. 1. 382. 4373&rep=rep1&type=pdf</a>
5. Homeland Security Council. (2007). National strategy for homeland security. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from: https://www. dhs. gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_homelandsecurity_2007. pdf