Abstract
Resilience may be viewed as the capacity of an individual, or perhaps of a dynamic system, to adjust and adapt positively to adversities and disruptions that impact one’s functioning and development. Yet a common statement in the literature is that there are still today numerous ways of defining and conceiving resilience. This multiplicity of approaches calls for clarification and generates a need of common theoretical ground. Therefore, this review aims to examine, to clarify and to synthesize how “human” resilience is conceptualized within the recent human sciences literature to help answer the question: ‘What are the key approaches, concepts, and definitions of resilience?”. Following Whittemore and Knafl (2005, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x) methods, an integrative review of the recent resilience literature (2013–2019) was undertaken. Four databases were used for the search: PsycINFO, PubMed, ERIC, Google Scholar. A reference and citation tracking was then performed on the papers identified. Sixty-nine papers passed all the stages (identification, screening, eligibility, inclusion) and formed the sample. Results show that resilience definitions are nowadays either about “adapting and bouncing back to previous levels of health” or about “thriving and rising above the adversity towards increased levels of health.” Results also show that resilience features—antecedents, mechanisms, consequences—are mainly conceptualized in a vertical sequence where an antecedent influences another or influences a mechanism leading to consequences. This paper concludes that modern conceptions can fit within a transactional and constructivist approach that goes beyond the former approaches by providing a more nuanced and realistic picture of the resilience process and by viewing it as a dynamic and person-situation-defined process.
Highlights
As an illustration to the unresolved questions about the orientation to be given to the resilience process and outcome, a great variability within the resilience definitions appears to stem from the recent literature on modern and ecological approaches to resilience
Where the traditional approach had a very subjective eye, and where the ecological approach has a contextual eye, the transactional and constructivist approach stands as integrative and has a situational eye granting the full consideration of a specific individual in an environment and their agency. The aim of this integrative review was to examine, to understand, and to synthesize how human resilience is concep tualized within the recent human science literature
The primary research question of this integrative review was: What are the key approaches, concepts, and definitions of resilience within the recent literature? Altogether, 69 papers were included in the review and a reference and citation tracking was performed
Summary
This review aims to examine, to clarify and to synthesize how “human” resilience is conceptualized within the recent human sciences literature to help answer the question: ‘What are the key approaches, concepts, and definitions of resilience?”. As such clarification is essential in shaping a substantial and coherent basis for practical applications and health policies (Ayed et al, 2019; Christmas & Khanlou, 2019; Leys et al, 2018), the major goal of this paper is to examine and synthesize the more recent approaches to resilience
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
