Understanding the Warning Process Through the Lens of Practice: Emancipation as a Condition of Action–Some Lessons from France - Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems for Climate Change - page 220

activities during the major 2005 fl ood event in the Gard region. The same interview
guideline has been used for all the actors, so as to avoid introducing any a priori
distinction between them.

12.2.3 Data and Analytical Approach

The data were collected from October 2007 to September 2008. Ninety-three
semi-structured interviews were conducted with the actors, and completed by
observations in situ at the National Forecasting Centre (CNP) in Toulouse, the
Hydro-Meteorological Service and Flood Prevention Support Centre (SCHAPI)
and into emergency response units; several notebooks from town halls, post-event
reports and numerous technical documents were also gathered.
The interviews were transcribed, word for word, prior to the analysis. The aim of
the analysis was to understand how the actors make sense of the situation and direct
their actions, within their specifi c contexts of practice.
Following Thévenot ( 2006 ), this chapter will concentrate on the process whereby
the actors assess the situation in order to direct their action. This process involves
both (1) assessing the environment in order to gather clues and information on
the situation (assessment) and (2) suspending this assessment process at a given
point in order to stabilise the meaning of the situation and direct the response
(closure). This requires a dual relationship with the environment: one of contact
(contiguity or connectedness) and one of comprehension (cognitive and interpretative).
All the factors that contribute to this process were therefore identifi ed, paying par-
ticular attention to the situations and action contexts of the people involved. Indeed,
from the perspective of situated action theory (e.g. Conein and Jacopin 1994 ; De
Fornel and Quéré 1999 ; Quéré 1997 ), we know that information cannot be inter-
preted and integrated without a clear understanding of the action context.
This action context appeared to be a nodal point for this research. It may include
many entities, such as the river, the models, model outcomes, the opinion of an
expert or resident, spatial factors (urban layout, dikes, etc.) or different categories
of population. The specifi c sets of entities that actors consider in taking action con-
stitute what is called their 'action environment' (AE) and correspond to the 'world'
in and with which they carry action. The composition of these AEs is therefore not
without impact on the action process, as defi ned by Thévenot ( 2006 ), in particular
with regard to the task of defi ning the situation.
By analysing the AEs, or the entities considered by the people involved in the
course of the warning process, two fundamental questions may be tackled:

￿ What should the warning actors take into account in their assessment in order to
defi ne the situation? What does this involve (Sect. 12.2 )?
￿ How can this process of assessment (defi nition) and the closure required in a
context of action be achieved, i.e. how, in concrete terms, can all these entities be
considered in choosing what action to take (Sect. 12.3 ) ?