Blame Avoidance and Worldviews: Explaining the Recurrence of Sociocultural Disasters within Aboriginal Communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionPolybius, with his concept of Anacy dosis where (...) the natural course or order in which constitutions change, are transformed, and return again to their original stage (Trompf, 1979, p. 5), was the first to suggest that history may repeat itself (Trompf 1979, p. 15). Yet, the concept of historic recurrence has not been left unchallenged, having progressivism as its main contender. Baum (1978) and Edelstein (1967) argue that although progressivist ideas date as far back as the work of Xenophanes, it was the writings of the Age of Enlightenment that received praise for their notion of progress, dynamic change and human control (pp. 67-70). It is in this light that:... risk analysis might be regarded as not only a product of enlightenment thinking, but also the means to deliver the ultimate enlightenment fantasy: the idea that successive generations will learn more about the world, and so become more able to manipulate it for human gain and contentment. (Horlick-Jones 2013, P-1)It is through this lens of educational opportunities and progressive learning that Toft and Reynolds (2005) operationalize their perspective on risk, crisis, and disaster management. They argue that share similar morphological features and that if conscious efforts to understand these similarities take place ... it may be possible to design procedures and structures that assist organisational learning and reduce further loss (p. 65). They consider this as a part of the 'active learning' process, ... knowing about something and then taking remedial action to rectify the deficiencies that have been uncovered (Toft and Reynolds ,p. 66). Yet, given that create opportunities for active learning, why do they repeat?This paper will argue that repeated are not the result of fatalistic historic recurrence, but rather the outcome of human factors that hinder the process of active learning. It will do so by exploring the detrimental role of blame-avoidance and conflicting world-views in reaching the key benchmarks of Toft and Reynolds' p. 67) Steps to active foresight model.This paper will examine the above question by considering firstly what is meant by 'disaster', 'active learning', 'isomorphism', 'safety culture', 'blame and responsibility', and 'world-views'. Having examined these concepts, a case study on recurring socio-cultural within Aboriginal communities in Canada will be outlined. Then, using Christopher Hood' (2011a) Architectonics of Blame Avoidance as a theoretical backbone, blame-avoidance will be considered as an important factor that hinders application of learnt lessons in Canadian law, resulting in the recurrence of disastrous situations for the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Finally, this paper will investigate the role that diverging worldviews has played in weakening opportunities for active learning.Conceptual frameworkIn order to address the above question effectively, a conceptual framework must be outlined. Firstly, as the aforementioned question implicates the notion of 'disaster', it warrants a clarification. Contemporary disaster research has widened its scope to study as a human phenomenon (Beck 1992; Tuner and Pidgeon 1997; Perrow 1999), either as the product of human activities or as the human inability to safeguard its surroundings from possible risks. Yet, what is common throughout disaster literature is the notion that they occur suddenly. Some academics are at odds in this regard: Quarantelli emphasises neither an event nor a physical place or time as relevant to disasters (Perry 2007, p. 10). Disasters, then, can be conceptualized as phenomenon's that can persist over long durations and across vast geographies. Given the nature of the chosen case study, reviewing calamitous long-period events that have arguably had disastrous consequences on Aboriginal communities across Canada, it is deemed that Quarantelli's view of disaster is the most suitable. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".