The concept of resilience has evolved, from an individual-level characteristic to a wider ecological notion that takes into account broader person-environment interactions, generating an increased interest in health and well-being research, practice and policy. At the same time, the research and policy-based attempts to build resilience are increasingly under attack for responsibilizing individuals and maintaining, rather than challenging, the inequitable structure of society. When adversities faced by children and young people result from embedded inequality and social disadvantage, resilience-based knowledge has the potential to influence the wider adversity context. Therefore, it is vital that conceptualizations of resilience encompass this potential for marginalized people to challenge and transform aspects of their adversity, without holding them responsible for the barriers they face. This article outlines and provides examples from an approach that we are taking in our research and practice, which we have called Boingboing resilience. We argue that it is possible to bring resilience research and practice together with a social justice approach, giving equal and simultaneous attention to individuals and to the wider system. To achieve this goal, we suggest future research should have a co-produced and inclusive research design that overcomes the dilemma of agency and responsibility, contains a socially transformative element, and has the potential to empower children, young people, and families.

During recognition memory tests participants" pupils dilate more when they view old items compared to novel items. We sought to replicate this "pupil old/new effect" and to determine its relationship to participants" responses. We compared changes in pupil size during recognition when participants were given standard recognition memory instructions, instructions to feign amnesia and instructions to report all items as new. Participants" pupils dilated more to old items compared to new items under all three instruction conditions. This finding suggests that the increase in pupil size that occurs when participants encounter previously studied items is not under conscious control. Given that pupil size can be reliably and simply measured, the pupil old/new effect may have potential in clinical settings as a means for determining whether patients are feigning memory loss.

Summary: This article reports research that aimed to identify and evaluate potential resilience benefits of visual arts interventions for young people with complex needs.The study involved a review of the 'arts for resilience' literature and a case study of 10 weekly resilience-building arts workshops for 10 young people experiencing mental health complexities and/or learning difficulties. Findings:We found a significant existing evidence-base linking visual arts practice to individual and community resilience (over 190 references), across disciplinary fields including art therapy, social work, community health, visual arts practice and 2 geographies of health. Visual art activities were utilised to both educate young people about resilience and enhance young people's overall resilience. Qualitative research material developed from the case study shows that even short-term visual arts interventions can impact on young people's resilience -crucially participation was extremely beneficial to young people's sense of belonging and ability to cope with difficult feelings (topics which arose repeatedly during interview, focus group discussion and observation).Applications: Our review and findings from this small case study provide some initial insights into the resilience benefits of participation in visual arts activities. This, combined with the resilient-based practice framework presented here, could aid the effective targeting of interventions for social workers and others working with young people with complex needs. Alongside this research paper, an arts for resilience practice guide has been produced by the project team (including young people). It contains instructions on how to conduct a range of practical visual arts activities that we identified as being resilience-promoting.

Over the past decade different approaches to mobilising knowledge inCommunity2University Partnership (CUP) contexts have emerged in the UK. Despite this,detailed accounts of the intricate texture of these approaches, enabling others to replicate orlearn from them, are lacking. This paper adds to the literature which begins to address thisgap. The case considered here concentrates on one particular approach to knowledgemobilisation (KM) developed in the UK context. It provides an account of the authors’involvement in applying the concept, and practical lessons from a community of practice(CoP) approach, to developing knowledge exchange (KE) between academics, parents andpractitioners. The authors’ approach to KM explicitly attempts to combat power differentialsbetween academics and community partners, and problematises knowledge powerhierarchies. The paper explores the CoP concept and critically investigates key elements ofrelevance to developing KE in the CUP context. Specific themes addressed are those ofpower, participation and working across boundaries by CoP members with very differentsubject positions and knowledge capitals. The paper concludes that CoPs can be a usefulmechanism for KM, but have many limitations depending on the specific context in whichKM is being undertaken

The aim of this paper was to review published accounts of resilience-based approaches with and for disabled children and young people aged up to 25 years. The review is part of a broader study looking more generally at resilience-based interventions with and for young people. The authors attempt to summarise the approaches and techniques that might best support those children and young people who need them the most. However, when compared to the number of evaluated resilience-based approaches to working with typically-developing children and young people, those including children and young people with complex needs are disappointingly lacking. Of 830 retrieved references, 46 were relevant and 23 met the inclusion criteria and form the body of this review. They covered a variety of intervention content, setting, and delivery, and diverse children and young people, making comparative evaluation prohibitive. The difficulties in identifying suitable resilience-based interventions are discussed, together with the authors' iterative approach, which was informed by realist review methodology for complex social interventions. The review is set into a context of exclusion, an ableist mindset and the political economy of research. It also provides recommendations for future research and practice development in this field.