Today the article "Collecting and communicating perishable data in a post-disaster context: rapid research and rapid dissemination" is officially published in the journal Frontiers in Sociology, under the Medical Sociology section. We are extremely proud of this publication because after a rigorous peer review process and expert reviews in the post-disaster research, medicine, and sociology field, we see how the methodological reflection, which was a product of our fieldwork team's learning, has been recognized as a contribution to the knowledge field on how to conduct social research to inform and amend public policies in post-disaster times.

The article shares with the reader the criteria used when designing a methodology for rapid research (RAPID Research in English) during a post-disaster period in which the studied population is dealing with a cascading sequence of natural events, whether severe meteorological or natural phenomena, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and the pandemic in Puerto Rico. Then, the authors review the results of that initial design and reflect on the adaptations, challenges, achievements, and lessons of the methodology used. The main themes of reflection in the article are the process of collecting perishable data and how to quickly disseminate the study's findings.

To understand where public policy fails, it's important to document the voices and experiences of people suffering from the aftermath of disasters and the delay in aid. In the context of the original study, perishable data are the memories, experiences, and perceptions of a population that fade into oblivion or mix with new experiences. The article suggests using community resources to access voices and experiences marginalized by post-disaster aid processes and by scientific studies. Thanks to this local connection, the research team was able to interview people whose stories could easily be excluded from analyses. Sometimes these people don't have internet access, or their working hours don't match with the outreach, or they're distrustful. By using resources familiar to participants, science builds bridges of understanding supported by established trust bonds.

The article suggests that just as "rapid research" is named and employed, a "rapid dissemination" of what is learned should be generated. Rapid dissemination, according to the authors, includes activities that were carried out in the communities where preliminary findings were shared. In these community meetings, potential actions and recommendations arising from the findings were discussed. Another example of rapid dissemination was a public policy seminar in which FEMA representatives, COR3, the Health Commission of the legislature, and academia participated, where findings and recommendations were shared. The recommendation is to have a variety of products prepared to address any unexpected opportunity, like FEMA's public invitation to present recommendation changes. Although the results of the knowledge-sharing process cannot be guaranteed, the commitment to rapid dissemination of knowledge generated by rapid investigations makes it feasible to take actions based on data and evidence.

It's easy to say that a study used collaborative processes, but how are contributions in knowledge generation evidenced and recognized? The article reflects on different processes used in the quest to generate an inclusive authorship process. In the positionality section, the authors describe the process as designed and practiced. The team was initially oriented about the requirements for authorship. During this orientation, it was explained that to be considered for authorship one would have to participate significantly in different parts of the project, including analysis and dissemination of findings. It was informed that to facilitate the participation of community collaborators, tasks were designed with attention to each one's flexibility to complete them. In addition, stipends were offered as incentives for collaboration. However, after completing the data collection process and moving on to data analysis and dissemination activities, during the original study the team was reduced again to the 3 main co-investigators. Most community collaborators cited time conflicts and new responsibilities that prevented them from taking an active role at the end of the project. Therefore, although an inclusive authorship policy was developed, the initial knowledge product did not reflect change. At this point, the published article provides a valuable reflection and demonstration of the importance of flexibility in achieving inclusion. When developing the reflection, the team could develop flexible tasks once more and thus ensure that the different voices of the team could be part of the authorship of knowledge.

In summary, we highlight other details of this process and product that are a source of pride for PR PASS Workshop:

  • Seven of the co-authors are individuals who participated in the Experiential Learning Program of PR PASS Workshop.
  • The 3 main co-investigators were convened by PR PASS Workshop in July 2020 to collaborate on a proposal for federal rapid research funding on natural disasters to shed light on how to improve public policy in a context of cascading disasters. On that research opportunity, PR PASS Workshop collaborated with a total of 10 social scientists and submitted 3 study proposals that responded to a call for proposals issued by the Natural Hazard Center of the University of Colorado with funds from the National Science Foundation and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  • Once the research of Drs. Antonio Fernós, Alison Chopel, and Laura Gorbea was approved, PR PASS Workshop worked with the main co-investigators to provide support in the study's administration, event logistics, supervision of processes according to ethical protocols, and the production of deliverables.
  • Once the original study was completed, PR PASS Workshop translated the knowledge products, assisted the researchers in continuing to share the knowledge in 3 different forums: ICaMu in the Cities League, Disaster Researchers Meeting, and Society for Applied Anthropology.
  • In 2022, PR PASS Workshop gathered the work team to ensure that this article - reflecting on the lessons learned along the way - identified those valuable lessons in the disaster research field.

We are now in the process of translating the content to share its publication as an appendix to this news.