Conventional Resilience and the Impact of Catastrophic Injury Exposure on Special Operations Surgical Teams.

Abstract

This article presents a justification for using an ethnographic approach to research resilience. Our hypothesis is that the conventional resilience construct is ineffective in achieving its stated goal of mitigating diagnosable stress pathologies because it is grounded in a set of assumptions that overlook human experience when examining human performance in combat. To achieve this goal, we (1) describe the evolution of the strategic framework within which the conventional resilience construct is defined; (2) highlight certain limiting assumptions entailed in this framework; (3) explain how bottom-up ethnographic research relates the medic's practical performance to military requirements and mission capabilities; and (4) articulate the unique elements of our study that widen the aperture of the conventional resilience construct. We conclude by gesturing to initial research findings.