I would like to hear the opinions of others on whether the concept of resilience (whether it focuses on a person or a community) is a conservative or a neutral concept. Some researchers claim that it is conservative because it focuses on bouncing back from adversity without taking into account that the situation in which you bounce back may be problematic.
Hello Olympia,
I used the concept of resilience as to how it affects individuals, in my 5 year follow-up to my research 'Living with faecal incontinence':
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235629054_Living_with_faecal_incontinence_Follow-up_to_a_research_project
When I used the term, I saw it as a description of how my participants had 'bounced back' (Richardson 2002 in my ref list) when they had previously felt overwhelmed by the condition that they were living with. These participants who reported to have 'bounced back, were (possibly) stimulated by this to do very positive things that perhaps they would not have done otherwise? One lady, with her partner, circum-navigated the world.
Richardson (2002) graded resilience into different levels; not everyone displays 'resilient reintegration', like some of my participants had done; others returned to the same level or didn't 'bounce back'. Richardson (2002) described this movement after 'reintegration' and descending to a lower level as 'reintegration with loss', or 'dysfunctional reintegration'.
While resilient reintegration, to me, described how some participants seemed to be stimulated by their negative experiences, to 'get hold of life and live it!' I did not see a return to a comfort zone - a more passive existence where they could manage their condition - as negative (as suggested by Richardson 2002). If they had to down-grade previous life goals, I saw it as more positive than continuing to try to achieve what, at that time, was unachievable.
I don't know if this has answered your question but I enjoyed my trip down memory lane, looking at my project and follow-ups!
Thank you. Very best wishes,
Mary
We address this question in the following papers:
(a) https://www.acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/866
(b) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-016-2294-0
(c) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-015-0038-5
(d) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0309132513518834
Bounce back is only one view of resilience. A more positive view is the ability to bounce forward – to emerge from adversity with new problem solving skills. There's a very interesting literature on this kind of model in the urban literature, where there is a considerable emphasis on cities learning from adverse events like floods and other natural disasters.
http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/5701/1/Manyena%20et%20al%20-%20Disaster%20resilience%20a%20bounce%20back%20or%20bounce%20forward%20ability.pdf
Ronan
I am editing a forum on resilience in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. I would like to invite you and anyone else to provide a quick commentary for this forum. very tight deadlines but all views are interesting on this emerging topic. In my opinion resilience is related to homeostasis - 'bouncing back' to a pathological or precarious state vs shifting to a newer more sustainable state that supports survivial. I think the original authors claude bernard, cannon etc meant that homeostasis relates to staying within the safe limits necessary for survivial and going forward rather than maintaining or bouncing back to a prior unsustainble state. As always i enjoy your thinking
Carmel (was in Ireland previously)
I have just praised the above paper:
Zhang, R., Ewalds-Kvist, B. M., Li, D., & Jiang, J. (2018). Chinese Students’ Satisfaction with Life Relative to Psychological Capital and Mediated by Purpose in Life. Current Psychology, 1-12.
in another RG answer. S. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist is a co-author. Worth reading.
Also the second listed paper:
Lützén, K., & Ewalds-Kvist, B. (2013). Moral distress and its interconnection with moral sensitivity and moral resilience: Viewed from the philosophy of Viktor E. Frankl. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 10(3), 317-324.
Some very interesting literature to read. Thank you all for sharing the references
I agree with Prof. Conroy.
Great contribution from Beatrice
Thank you for interesting conversation
Flexibility is the ability to restore or maintain a positive outlook and perseverance in the face of challenge and adversity.
Where does flexibility come from?
As with so many other human traits, you can have a natural ability to withstand or learn. It is natural to always look at the bright side of life, but with the accumulation of experience in life, we develop a flexible perspective, or as the old saying goes: "What does not kill you, makes you stronger!". It is necessary to develop the ability to recognize the importance of continuity even after the challenges
Why is resilience so important?
The flexibility is positive and productive. The flexible person maintains a positive outlook on life even in difficulties. The community reacts positively to the positive and is likely to offer opportunities to help sustain, enhancing one's belief in adaptability and commitment.
Dear Olympia Kaminioti, for me as a psychologist resilience is a very positive concept. The American Psychologist Association (APA) often uses resilience in order to explain for instance trauma or immigration growth. This is a concept that explains that we as humans can grow even if we experience traumatic events because of our resilient capacities. I hope that this answer pleases you, Carl
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Physiology
- Physiological Processes
- Stress