Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Inconsistent, poorly designed research on resilience in the human sciences has contributed to epistemological and ontological ambiguity which has fuelled claims that resilience as a concept is poorly theorized. OBJECTIVE: Building on research with abused and neglected children around the world, the objective of this paper is to show that studies of resilience must account for: (a) risk exposure (of relevance in different contexts); (b) promotive and protective processes (internal and external resources associated with resilience across systems); and (c) desired outcomes (as privileged by stakeholders in different cultures and contexts). METHOD: By identifying common aspects of resilience research from a purposeful selection of studies (ones with weak and strong methodologies), this paper identifies three dimensions of well-designed studies of childhood resilience. RESULTS: Attention to all three dimensions enhances both the empirical validity (in the quantitative research paradigm) and phenomenological trustworthiness (in qualitative research) of resilience research with children and families. Challenges researching resilience can also be resolved by designing studies that account for all three dimensions. These challenges include the lack of systemic thinking to account for contextual factors and other external threats to child wellbeing, and the excessive generalization of findings. CONCLUSION: This three-part model for resilience research reflects the very best practices among resilience researchers and has the potential to address the definitional and methodological ambiguity that plague studies of resilience.
Michael Ungar (Wed,) studied this question.