This page summarizes the results of the 2018 Social Science Extreme Events Research (SSEER) Census. The results are based on the responses gathered from social scientists who responded to the SSEER survey between its release date on July 8, 2018 and December 31, 2018.
As of December 31, 2018, 648 researchers signed up for the SSEER network.
The SSEER map is organized by United Nations (UN) regions and subregions, and users can search for researchers by name or by their location (see Figure 1).
The vast majority of SSEER members reside in the Americas (80.40%). Of those who do not live in the Americas, most live in Europe (9.10%), Asia (5.25%), or Oceania (4.01%). Fewer than 1% of members reside in Africa (.93%). Only two SSEER members (.31%) did not provide a region of residence (see Figure 2).
The table below shows the number of SSEER members by region, subregion, and country. This closer inspection reveals that SSEER membership is highly concentrated in the Americas, with most researchers located in the North American subregion and the United States specifically. Few members are located in the Caribbean, Central American, or South American subregions. More specific details follow in Table 1.
Table 1. SSEER Researchers by UN Region, Subregion, and Country.
| Region | Number of people in the region | Subregion | Nuber of people in the subregion | Country | Number of people in the country |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Africa | 6 | Eastern Africa | 2 | Zambia | 2 |
| Southern Africa | 3 | South Africa | 3 | ||
| Western Africa | 1 | Nigeria | 1 | ||
| Americas | 521 | Caribean | 1 | Jamaica | 1 |
| Central America | 1 | Mexico | 1 | ||
| North America | 499 | Canada | 28 | ||
| United States | 471 | ||||
| South America | 20 | Argentina | 3 | ||
| Bolivia | 1 | ||||
| Brazil | 11 | ||||
| Chile | 2 | ||||
| Columbia | 1 | ||||
| Peru | 1 | ||||
| Venezuela | 1 | ||||
| Asia | 34 | Eastern Asia | 10 | Japan | 6 |
| Republic of China | 4 | ||||
| South-Eastern Asia | 6 | Indonesia | 1 | ||
| Philippines | 1 | ||||
| Thailand | 3 | ||||
| Union of Republic of Myanmar | 1 | ||||
| Southern Asia | 15 | Bangladesh | 3 | ||
| India | 8 | ||||
| Iran | 1 | ||||
| Nepal | 1 | ||||
| Pakistan | 1 | ||||
| Sri Lanka | 1 | ||||
| Western Asia | 3 | Kingdom of Saudi Arabia | 1 | ||
| Turkey | 1 | ||||
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | ||||
| Europe | 59 | Eastern Europe | 1 | Romania | 1 |
| Northern Europe | 27 | Denmark | 2 | ||
| Finland | 1 | ||||
| Norway | 2 | ||||
| Scotland | 1 | ||||
| Sweden | 3 | ||||
| United Kingdom | 18 | ||||
| Southern Europe | 15 | Italy | 4 | ||
| Portugal | 10 | ||||
| Spain | 1 | ||||
| Western Europe | 16 | Austria | 4 | ||
| France | 2 | ||||
| Germany | 5 | ||||
| The Netherlands | 5 | ||||
| Oceania | 26 | Australia and New Zealand | 26 | Australia | 11 |
| New Zealand | 15 | ||||
| Missing | 2 | ||||
| Total | 648 | ||||
There is no single, universal definition for which disciplines are included in the social sciences and related disciplines in the behavioral sciences and humanities. These blurry boundaries are related to what researchers study and the approaches they use in their work. Generally speaking, however, most social scientists are concerned with the connections between individuals, groups, institutions, and society.
In the SSEER Census, we asked researchers to identify their primary discipline—or set of disciplines for those with multidisciplinary training—as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 does not sum to 648 because researchers could, and often did, select more than one discipline.
In the SSEER survey, we asked researchers to share information about their highest level of education completed. Most SSEER researchers hold a doctoral degree (66.98%); the second most common degree held by researchers is a master’s degree (24.07%). Fewer members indicated a highest level of educational attainment at the bachelor’s (4.63%) or associate degree (.62%) or a professional degree (15%) (see Figure 4).
In terms of primary professional status, most SSEER researchers self-identified as academic researchers (61.41%), followed by students (15.9%) and government researchers (8.8%). Fewer members identify as independent researchers (4.17%), non-profit researchers (4.01%), or private sector researchers (2.16%). Some members identified as another kind of professional (2.93%) and a few indicated they are retired (.31%) (see Figure 5).
In the 2006 National Research Council consensus study, Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions, the authors raised a number of questions regarding the state of the hazards and disaster research workforce. In response to their calls for a more precise description of the levels of involvement among the members of this community, we asked SSEER researchers to select which of the following categories best describes their current status as a hazards and disaster researcher:
Strongly self-identifies as a hazards/disaster researcher, has a deep commitment to the field, and has engaged in hazards and disaster research for a sustained amount of time.
Is not primarily engaged in hazards and disaster research but focuses on related topics from time to time throughout one’s professional career.
Not previously trained or involved in the hazards and disaster field but had the opportunity to study new phenomena or processes based on a situational event; for example, a researcher who undertook a study after his or her community was affected by a major disaster.
Includes students and others who are new to the field and who are still learning about its disciplinary, multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary histories, theories, methods, and approaches. Emerging researchers may have limited experience or may not have yet conducted their own original empirical research.
As shown in Figure 6, most SSEER members self-identify as core researchers (47.99%), followed by emerging researchers (21.6%), periodic researchers (20.22%), and situational researchers (5.25%).
Social scientists often use a range of methods and approaches to collect and analyze data. To capture the range of methodological skills among this community, we asked researchers to identify each of their primary approaches to data collection and analysis. As summarized in Figure 7, the most popular methodological approaches include in-depth interviews, survey research, and case studies. The numbers in the figure do not sum to the sample size of 648 because researchers had the option to choose more than one approach, and most did so.
Social scientists who research hazards and disasters often identify themselves by the disaster phases, disaster types, and disaster events they study. Accordingly, the SSEER survey included a range of questions to better understand the expertise that these researchers possess.
Figure 8 shows the different phases across the disaster lifecycle that SSEER researchers have studied. Most SSEER researchers have focused on disaster preparedness (N = 498), followed by mitigation (N = 399), long-term recovery (N = 382), emergency response (N = 375), and short-term reconstruction (N = 228). The numbers here and in the figure below do not sum to the sample size of 648 because researchers had the option to choose more than one phase.
Figure 9 includes a summary of all disaster types that SSEER members indicated having studied. As shown below, the majority of SSEER researchers study natural hazards (N = 609; 93.98%), which includes geophysical, meteorological, hydrological, climatological, biological, and extraterrestrial events. In addition, some of the respondents indicated that they also study technological hazards (N = 184; 28.4%) such as industrial accidents, transport accidents, and toxic exposures. The smallest portion of SSEER respondents indicated that they focus on terrorism or other willful acts of violence (N = 122; 18.83%). The numbers in the figure below do not sum to the sample size of 648 because researchers had the option to choose more than one disaster type that they study.
It is interesting to note that among SSEER researchers, the top 10 most frequently studied disasters have all occurred in the 21st century and most of these events happened in the United States (see Figure 11). Again, these results should be interpreted with care since this is not yet a complete census of the entire social science community, and SSEER membership is heavily concentrated in the United States. These results are, however, suggestive of which events receive the most attention and in which parts of the world. At the same time, it is important to underscore that SSEER researchers offered over 700 unique responses to the question of which disasters they have studied, and their responses spanned centuries and represented disasters in all of the UN regions.
The demographic composition of the hazards and disaster research workforce has long been of interest to leaders within the field. One area of special concern is whether or not those studying disasters reflect the demographics of the populations being studied.
With this in mind, we closed the SSEER survey by asking a series of questions regarding respondent age and years of experience, race and ethnicity, and gender identity.
In the 2018 Census, SSEER researchers ranged in age from 21 to 78 years. The average age of the SSEER researchers is 41.68 years, and 10.1 years is the average length of research experience in the hazards and disaster field. Of all respondents, 16.82% did not provide their age.
SSEER survey respondents were asked to select which racial and ethnic categories best describe their identity. When prompted, most SSEER respondents said they identified as White (61.73%). Fewer SSEER members identified as Asian/Asian American (13.73%), Hispanic/Latino (5.40%), or Black/African American (4.32%). A small percentage of respondents selected two or more racial or ethnic categories (2.01%) or some other provided identity option (.62%) such as Indigeous, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander or Arab/Arab American/Middle Eastern. We included “prefer not to answer” and “prefer to self-describe” response options, in recognition that some respondents both inside and outside the United States may be uncomfortable with available fixed identity categories. A sizeable minority (12.19%) of SSEER respondents were coded as “missing” because they did not respond to the race/ethnicity question, chose “prefer not to answer,” or selected “prefer to self-describe” (see Table 2).
Table 2. Racial/Ethnic Identity of SSEER Researchers.
| Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| White | 400 | 61.73% |
| Asian/Asian American | 89 | 13.73% |
| Hispanic/Latino | 35 | 5.40% |
| Black/African American | 28 | 4.32% |
| Two or more racial/ethnic identities | 13 | 2.01% |
| Some other provided racial/ethnic identity | 4 | 0.62% |
| Missing | 79 | 12.19% |
| Total | 648 | 100% |
Table 3. Gender Identity of SSEER Researchers.
| Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Woman | 340 | 52.47% |
| Man | 274 | 42.28% |
| Some other answer | 34 | 5.25% |
| Total | 648 | 100% |
Teams of social scientists first began systematically studying disasters in the late 1940s and early 1950s. In the decades since, there have been several calls to learn more about the composition of this research workforce to ensure that it is prepared to meet the challenges posed by a highly unequal social world and an ever more turbulent natural world. In their report on the status of the field, the Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences acknowledged, however, that “it is difficult to be very precise about the demographic structure of hazards and disaster research due to the absence of good data” (NRC, 2006, pp. 322-323). This report responds to that gap by summarizing the results of the first census of social scientists who study hazards and disasters. Our analysis of the SSEER network data has allowed us to characterize the demographic composition, methods and approaches, and other attributes among this dynamic research community.
We will release the SSEER Census results annually via the CONVERGE website so that we can continue to monitor the status of the social science hazards and disaster research field. We will also continue to update the interactive SSEER map regularly, so if you are a social scientist how studies extreme events and have not yet joined, you are invited to do so.
Peek, Lori, Haorui Wu, Mason Mathews, Heather Champeau, and Jessica Austin. (2021). “The 2018 Social Science Extreme Events Research (SSEER) Census,” in Social Science Extreme Events Research (SSEER) Network Data, Survey Instrument, and Annual Census. DesignSafe-CI. https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-0f0q-vz13.
For further interpretation and analyses of this data, please see:
Peek, Lori, Heather Champeau, Jessica Austin, Mason Mathews, and Haorui Wu. 2020. “What Methods Do Social Scientists Use to Study Disasters? An Analysis of the Social Science Extreme Events Research (SSEER) Network.” American Behavioral Scientist 64(8): 1066-1094.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF Award #1745611 and #1841338). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the Natural Hazards Center, or CONVERGE.
Much gratitude is owed to the members of the Natural Hazards Center team, with special thanks to: Jolie Breeden for technical and editorial support; Jeffrey Gunderson for web and data management expertise; and Rachel Adams, Emmanuelle Hines, and Jennifer Tobin for their careful review of earlier drafts of this census.Peek, Lori, Haorui Wu, Mason Mathews, Heather Champeau, and Jessica Austin. (2021). “The 2018 Social Science Extreme Events Research (SSEER) Census,” in Social Science Extreme Events Research (SSEER) Network Data, Survey Instrument, and Annual Census. DesignSafe-CI. https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-
CONVERGE is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation, Program on Humans, Disasters, and the Built Environment (Award #1841338). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.