The Definitions of Human Resilience - Essay Example

 The Definitions of Human Resilience Part 1: Reflection on the Evolution of Resilience Research The subject of human resilience has intrigued various professionals in diverse fields of endeavors, especially as it has been seen as instrumental in determining the outcome of an identified profile of individuals who succeeded despite life’s vicissitudes. The purpose of the current reflection is to proffer how research on resilience has changed after considering various research articles such as Emmy Werner’s Children of Garden Island and Froma Walsh’s A Family Resilience Framework: Innovative Practice Applications. From Werner’s (1989) discourse, it was clearly identified that the protective factors that significantly influenced individuals’ ability to manifest resilience despite life’s various challenges and adversities include: (1) characteristics of temperament, specifically identified as high activity level, low levels of both exciteability and distress, and high degree of exemplifying social, problem-solving and reading skills; (2) environmental factors such as coming from a family with a maximum of four siblings with spacing of a least two years between the resilient child and that of the next sibling; (3) established a close bond with a primary caregiver; (4) received external emotional support outside of the immediate family [ CITATION Wer89 \l 1033 ]. After Weber’s study, the focus was shifted from the individual to the family where, as disclosed by Walsh (2002), there were key processes that assist a family in developing resilience, as categorized into three major domains: family belief systems, organization patterns, and communication processes (Walsh, 1998b; cited in Walsh, 2002, p. 132). One strongly believes that by shifting the focus from the individual to the family, the protective factors were likewise expounded to include external factors and communication processes among members that are crucial in gaining increased resilience. This is the most appropriate approach given that since Werner’s study, other researches that aimed to accurately determine protective factors or key processes duly integrated the significant influence of the family, per se, to master and overcome adversities [ CITATION Wal02 \l 1033 ]. When conducting research on human resilience, it is therefore commendable for Walsh (2002) to consider various issues and programs where the family resilience approach was seen to be significantly applicable, such as “addressing: (a) changing family forms and challenges (e.g., divorce and stepfamily reorganization, gay and lesbian couples and families), (b) job loss and workplace transition, (c) serious mental and physical illnesses, (d) end-of-life challenges and loss, and (e) war-related trauma recovery” (p. 133). Since Werner’s study, changes in the macroenvironment has provided the impetus to incorporate factors seen as impinging on family resilience. Therefore, research on resilience has shifted in focus from identifying family weaknesses to family strengths [CITATION Wal02 \p 130 \l 1033 ], as opposed to Werner’s (1989) focus on personal traits and the children’s physical, cognitive and psychosocial development [ CITATION Wer89 \l 1033 ]. Likewise, one recognized that the emphasis was also transformed from interventions being reportedly redirected from causes of the problems to how these problems would be solved [CITATION Wal02 \p 130 \l 1033 ]. Finally, the researches evolved into incorporating both risk and protective process over a period of time and involves not only the individual, but also the family and even encompassing larger sociocultural factors [CITATION Wal02 \p 130 \l 1033 ]. Despite the developments made in studying human resilience, researchers have identified the need to determine the implications and results of applying the family resilience approach, for instance, in other populations and in diverse cultural orientations [ CITATION Wal02 \l 1033 ]. Likewise, Werner (1989) briefly noted the need to evaluate intervention programs in greater depth to determine more accurately how these programs could effectively assist children identified to be vulnerable and at high risk to develop resilience despite adversities. Finally, it is one’s personal contention that the lessons provided by both Werner (1989) and Walsh’s (2002) studies on protective factors and key processes to develop human resilience are instrumental in recognizing the most effective interventions that could determine the success or failure of people at risk through life. These lessons are most interesting in terms of providing information which are beneficial and applicable in contemporary and future settings, as practitioners in psychology realize that theories and concepts on human resilience continue to evolve through time. As more families and societies encourage independence of children from parents, lessons gained on protective factors and key processes help to recognize that most of the factors continue to change through developments in the external environment. Therefore, one firmly believes that aside from focusing on the ability to identify these protective factors, practitioners must assume a proactive stance in anticipating how future trends in the global environment would influence and affect these key processes and how these would influence human resilience in the future. Part 2: Reflection on the Definition of Resilience The current reflection essay aims to present personal views on how one’s personal definition of “resilience” has or has not changed through the course. The discourse would consider addressing the following questions, to wit: (1) how would one respond to Michael Chandler’s concern about defining resilient individuals as those who are made of “stainless steel” and non-resilient individuals as those who are made of “celluloid”? (2) Does the “stainless steel” metaphor suggest that only the lucky few are resilient because they carry a particular trait or personality characteristic? (3) Based on what one has learned from the research presented in the course, would one characterize this definition as misleading? Why or why not? (4) Can conditions external to the individual promote or undermine resilience? One defined resilience as the ability of an individual to adopt and adjust successfully to the various demands in life despite being previously subjected to challenges and difficulties. The definition is likewise similar to Walsh’s (2002) definition of the term as “resilience—the ability to withstand and rebound from adversity” (p. 130). After viewing Michael Chandler’s video clip on defining resilience, one was made aware that the effort to define this term actually originated more than 25 to 30 years ago (just about the time when Werner’s study was published) and focused primarily on some personal traits – such as people being made of tough stuff or described as invulnerable, as if exemplifying the embodiment of steel dolls [ CITATION Ope10 \l 1033 ]. According to Michael Chandler, the original concept could actually be misleading since it presupposed that people who got the right stuff (supposedly, those who are apparently made of steel) would be more resilient; as compared to those people who are not made of the right stuff (described as made of celluloid). This was corroborated by Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichl, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia, who indicated that early on when the concept of resilience was in its early stage of research, the term that was actually used was ‘invulnerability’ that explains making synonymous parallelism to a ‘steel doll’ [ CITATION Ope10 \l 1033 ] where people exhibiting these traits could just brush off adversities and life’s challenges. Using the “stainless steel” metaphor, it indeed suggests that only the lucky few are resilient because they carry a particular trait or personality characteristic of being tough and being made of steel. From what one has learned through the course, one realized that this definition is now a misnomer and is indeed misleading. As evidenced from both Wesner (1989) and Walsh’s (2002) studies, individual and family resilience were noted to have been made possible with the influence of protective factors and key processes, not merely on personal characteristics or traits. Likewise, both Wesner (1989) and Walsh’s (2002) researches proved that external factors were contributory to increased resilience over time. Although Wesner’s (1989) research identified some characteristics of temperament that were proven to be contributory to increased resilience, the author emphasized that these traits remain to be exhibited constantly through time. Meaning, the consistency is exhibiting these traits have validated that the innate characteristics of high activity level, low levels of both exciteability and distress, and high degree of exemplifying social, problem-solving and reading skills, as well as showing interests in a special hobby with a friend continue to be manifested through adulthood. In addition, as emphasized by Wesner (1989), “environmental factors …contributed to these children’s ability to withstand stress” (p. 4). Likewise, in Walsh’s (2002) research, it was disclosed that of the three domains for key processes in family resilience, under the domain of organizational patterns, the sub-heading on social and economic resources (p. 132) form part of environmental factors. Thereby, conditions external to the individual can actually promote resilience, as proven from various research. In sum, the core elements and thrust of one’s personal definition of resilience has not changed through the course; however, greater depth and understanding was provided from the readings in terms of confirming that the concept of resilience is not a simple and straightforward matter that focus on a static idea. One shares the same conviction relayed by Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichl that resilience is a difficult concept because of its complexity in the need to incorporate evolving factors and the need to take into account that it entails continued interactions with influencing elements (personal characteristics, the external environment, beliefs and value systems, organizational patterns, and communication patterns) which also evolve and develop through time. References CITATION Wer89 \l 1033 : , (Werner, 1989), CITATION Wal02 \l 1033 : , (Walsh, 2002), CITATION Wal02 \p 130 \l 1033 : , (Walsh, 2002, p. 130), CITATION Ope10 \l 1033 : , (Open Learning Thompson Rivers University, 2010), Read More