While there are many definitions of resilience in the literature, researchers generally agree that resilience refers to “patterns of desirable behaviour in situations where adaptive functioning or development have been significantly threatened by adverse experiences” (Masten et al., 1995, p.283).
In the past, resilience has been described as an individual attribute, but emerging literature emphasizes the importance of contextual and cultural factors (Simich et al., 2012). This is coined the “social-ecological” definition of resilience, whereby resilience is dependent on the ability of the individual and their environments to interact in ways that optimize outcomes (Ungar, 2013). Thus, resilience is not only the outcome of individual psychological processes, but involves the “social process that reside in relationships among people, systems and institutions at the level of families, neighborhoods, communities, and organizations, governments and transitional networks” (Kirmayer, 2014, p.vii).
Preliminary research has identified formal and informal methods for promoting resilience. Informally, personal networks are identified as the key contributors to successful resettlement and integration (Simich et al., 2012; Ciaramella, 2021). Formally, it is recognized that more service delivery options to promote resilience are needed (Simich et al., 2012). Specific to the health services sector, research shows that the nature of service delivery is of utmost importance, characterized by ongoing outreach and cultural competence (Simich et al., 2012).
If we want to foster resilience, what we have to do is think about it as a set of resources that we can actually facilitate, we can actually help people to access. In the work that my team and I, at the Resilience Research Centre, have been doing all around the world, we keep seeing recurring patterns in what is actually predictive of the likelihood that people who are under stress, especially children and youth, are going to experience the capacity to withstand those stressors. And there are certain things that appear, such as, of course, relationships. We know that those are important, but we do have to think broader than just the primary caregiver often because, to be truthful, those caregivers are often under a lot of stress. And then, of course, we might want to also consider thinking about things like a really powerful identity, which again isn't something just inside of us, it's given to us: opportunities to show our talents, to use our talents. We also see consistently a theme of control or efficacy. And that can be personal efficacy in our relationships, making decisions that affect us, as well as political efficacy—that notion of being able to change or have a say over institutions around us. We've also been seeing a lot of focus on social justice. Again that tends to be given to us, the idea that we're treated fairly by our communities as well as getting the basic material resources that we need, everything from housing safety, clothing, these kinds of things. We're also seeing a theme in our work of belonging or social cohesion that could be represented by spirituality or a sense of attachment to a religion or institution, some sort of identity related to being part of a group. And, finally, we also see around the world a real sense of continuity or culture, that we have a sense of where we're coming from and the heritage that we've inherited. So if I got those seven things: relationships, identity, power control, social justice, basic material resources, a sense of cohesion or belonging, and finally culture, if you can imagine those seven things being juggled up in the air and then interacting with each other, what we're concretely understanding is that people who get those seven things or help to find those seven things in ways that are meaningful, navigation and negotiation, are actually more likely to be able to withstand stress when stress occurs in the future.