Introduction

Several research teams have documented the consequences of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and throughout the country. The chapters in this part bring together reports from three of these research teams and summarize some of the key findings from each of their studies. Two commentaries offer perspectives on the challenges that this research faces and what these challenges suggest for post-disaster research in general. There are several key methodologic points that emerge from these preceding chapters. In this discussion I will synthesize the key methodologic issues that emerge both from the empiric papers and from the accompanying commentaries. Some of my comments are congruent with those already articulated in the preceding six chapters. I restate those comments here to reflect their importance and to present them as a part of a broader reflection on this area of research. Overall, we can fruitfully consider the key methodologic issues at hand along two principal lines, namely issues pertaining to nature of the sample and issues that pertain to assessment methods used in the research.

Population sampling

Choosing the right sample to ask the right questions

We can consider that there are three principal types of samples that have, appropriately, been the focus of most post-disaster research. These are: samples of persons who were directly affected by a disaster (frequently referred to as “victims” in the literature), samples of rescue works (including police, fire-fighters and others), and general population samples. As noted by North et al. (this volume) in their commentary, studies that are implemented in each of these samples are not comparable and indeed neither should they be.