ABSTRACT
Introduction The current chapter focuses on DRAaM knowledge production in South Africa since the promulgation of the DMA in early 2003. In the process it engages with various governing micro-discourses constitutive of the broader DRAaM edifi ce and associated professional identities. The chapter is conveniently divided into two sections. The fi rst part discusses academic knowledge production. The second part analyses consultants’ reports. However, for reasons outlined in the previous chapter, the two categories, namely ‘academic’ and ‘practice’, should rather be viewed as ideal types in the Weberian sense, enacted here to give structure to the analysis. 1
At this point, one matter needs clarification. Much of the research, and potentially even some of the most theoretically rich research, might pertain to DRAaM only by implication. It has DRAaM application, but it is not framed in that vernacular. The discussion on academic DRAaM knowledge production presented here only extends to those instances in which the research is overtly framed in terms of DRAaM – in other words, where the particular vernacular associated with DRAaM is explicitly employed or where titles, keywords and abstracts evidently include words such as ‘DRR’, ‘DRM’, ‘disaster risk’ or ‘risk’. Extending the analysis more broadly would have defied the study’s parameters. The point of departure is simply this: there is a growing group of academics and students who are focused on DRAaM, as evidenced by the defining characteristic code referenced in numerous instances previously. It is on this knowledge production that the chapter focuses.
