Multiorganizational response to emergencies and disasters requires collaboration. How to improve the collective response is therefore an essential question, but not easy to answer. In disaster research, normative research with a focus on providing evidence for how to improve professional practice has traditionally received less attention than explanatory ones. The aim of this article, using insights from design science where normative research is more common, is to suggest a complementary approach to response management research. Our approach, which combines experimental and explanatory research, is applied to a study of goal alignment. Goal alignment among response actors is often recommended despite literature’s contradictory evidence regarding its effect. We conducted an experiment with 111 participants, who, in groups of three, played a computer game under one of two conditions (goal alignment or not). Our results show that aligning goals did not improve the outcome in the game. Although this may serve as a counterargument to implementing goal alignment interventions, there are concerns with such conclusions. These reservations include, but are not limited to, the lack of validated models to use in experiments. Nevertheless, our suggested research approach and the goal alignment experiment highlight the importance of testing interventions and their effectiveness before implementation.

多组织对紧急情况和灾难的反应需要合作。因此，如何改善集体反应是一个基本问题，但不容易回答。在灾难研究中，以提供有关如何改善专业实践的证据为重点的规范研究传统上没有受到解释性研究的关注。本文的目的是利用设计科学中的一些见识（其中规范性研究更为普遍）来提出一种应对管理研究的补充方法。我们的方法，结合了实验性研究和解释性研究，被应用于目标对准的研究。尽管文献中关于其作用的证据相互矛盾，但通常还是建议在反应者之间实现目标一致。我们对111名参与者进行了一项实验，他们每三人一组，在以下两种情况之一下玩过电脑游戏（是否符合目标）。我们的结果表明，调整目标并不能改善游戏的结果。尽管这可能与实施目标调整干预措施相反，但对于此类结论仍存在担忧。这些保留包括但不限于缺少在实验中使用的经过验证的模型。尽管如此，我们建议的研究方法和目标调整实验突出了测试干预措施的重要性及其在实施之前的有效性。这些保留包括但不限于缺少在实验中使用的经过验证的模型。尽管如此，我们建议的研究方法和目标调整实验突出了测试干预措施的重要性及其在实施之前的有效性。这些保留包括但不限于缺少在实验中使用的经过验证的模型。尽管如此，我们建议的研究方法和目标调整实验突出了测试干预措施的重要性及其在实施之前的有效性。