Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
An ecological approach to the study of resilience, informed by Systems Theory and emphasizing predictable relationships between risk and protective factors, circular causality, and transactional processes, is inadequate to account for the diversity of people’s experiences of resilience. In contrast, a constructionist interpretation of resilience reflects a postmodern understanding of the construct that better accounts for cultural and contextual differences in how resilience is expressed by individuals, families, and communities. Research supporting this approach has demonstrated a nonsystemic, nonhierarchical relationship between risk and protective factors that is characteristically chaotic, complex, relative, and contextual. This article critically reviews research findings that support an ecological perspective and explores the emerging literature that informs a constructionist approach to the study of resilience. It will show that an alternate constructionist discourse on resilience greatly enhances our understanding of resilience-related phenomena and our approach to interventions with at-risk youth populations.
Michael Ungar (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: