Resilience: The Holy Grail or Yet Another Hype?

Milliano, Cecile de; Faling, Marijn; Clark‐Ginsberg, Aaron; Crowley, Dominic; Gibbons, Pat

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13470-3_2

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, our results corroborate global Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) literatures that emphasize planning in ways that address chronic crises and human rights abuses while also seeking to increase equity and social resources for health (SPHERE, 2011). In fact, conceptualization of systemic and infrastructure resilience in DRR focuses on “bouncing forward” and suggests that systems should aim to build positive changes in the face of adversity, rather than simply “bouncing back” or returning to the status quo (Milliano, Faling, Clark-Ginsberg, & Gibbons, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Equitable Primary Health Care in Conflict-Affected Settings: Expert Perspectives From the Frontlines

Atallah

Djalali²,

Fredricks

et al. 2017

Qual Health Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health systems are frequently among the casualties of conflict. Within these settings, increased knowledge is needed on how to rebuild and strengthen health infrastructure resilience, such as primary health care (PHC) systems, in context-specific ways that promote health equity. Therefore, this study aimed to explore perspectives of experts with experience working on frontlines of social crises to contribute to understandings of pathways toward equitable PHC in conflict-affected settings. Semistructured qualitative interviews with 18 expert participants were completed. Through engaging elements of grounded theory situational analysis, three themes emerged iteratively, including (a) Building Blocks, (b) Intermediating Factors, and (c) a Roadmap. These emergent themes contribute to conceptual frameworks explaining key contextually specific priorities, challenges, and facilitating factors for developing resilient health infrastructures under social crises. Findings inform policy and practical guidelines that address complexities of conflict conditions and underscore the importance of PHC development toward promoting health as a human right.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Equitable Primary Health Care in Conflict-Affected Settings: Expert Perspectives From the Frontlines

Atallah

Djalali²,

Fredricks

et al. 2017

Qual Health Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Chile is characterized by the continuous occurrence of natural hazards and disasters, including earthquakes and tsunamis and increasing floods and fires. Milliano, Faling, Clark-Ginsberg, Crowley, and Gibbons (2015) argue for conceptualizations of disasters that take into account “multirisk environments,” which include “slow and rapid onset emergencies, violent conflict, climate change, and other global challenges such as pandemics and biodiversity loss, as well as chronic political, economic, and societal fragility” (p. 25). Furthermore, Wisner and Kelman (2015) argue that it is important to acknowledge at least four overlapping hazard categories when considering disasters, including natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, fires, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions), technological hazards (e.g., oil spills, nuclear power plant disasters, and transportation-related crashes), violent social crisis (e.g., wars, terrorist attacks, gun massacres, gang-related community violence, assassinations, detentions, torture, and disappearances by state-led repressive regimes), and nonviolent social crisis (e.g., chronic poverty, structural discrimination, and the presence of slow yet continuous socioenvironmental changes that reduce accessibility and availability of key resources and human rights).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Centering at the Margins: Critical Community Resilience Praxis

Atallah

Bacigalupe

Repetto

2019

Journal of Humanistic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: This article aims to reframe resilience for use in community research and action in conditions of adversity marked by increasing natural disasters and by social inequities rooted in the coloniality of power, such as in Chile. Method: We review international resilience literature that explores responses to complex adversities, evaluating three “waves” of resilience research, including (1) “bouncing back,” which frames resilience as protecting functioning; (2) “bouncing forward,” understanding resilience as adaptation; and (3) what we are calling, the “centering at the margins” wave, which explicitly incorporates liberation psychology and decolonial, critical race theories to the study and promotion of resilience. Results: Building off “third wave” thinking, this article attempts to improve the social justice ethics within which research on resilience is completed by introducing a critical community resilience praxis. Conclusions: Critical community resilience praxis can aid the study of resilience by illuminating ways to avoid the reinforcement of social hierarchies and interlocking systems of oppression relevant to the work of disaster risk reduction investigators, psychologists, and differently positioned stakeholders engaged in resilience research and practice in complex settings internationally marked by histories of colonialism, consequences of climate change, and continual social inequities.

show abstract

“…Particularly in the field of disaster resilience, criticism has been voiced about the “unquestioned acceptance of recovery and rebuilding policies and activities that re‐inscribed pre‐existing power structures and gender inequities” (Cox & Perry, , p. 408). One response to this critique has been to emphasize the possibility and desirability of “bouncing forward,” implying a view of resilience in terms of “building adaptive capacity for positive change” (de Milliano, Faling, Clark‐Ginsberg, Crowley, & Gibbons, , p. 21). Others have gone further by coupling resilience with transformation (Folke et al, ; Mao et al, ; Pelling & Manuel‐Navarrete, ), arguing that this “brings issues of people, politics, and power to the fore” (Bahadur & Tanner, , p. 200).…”

Section: Resilience For What Purpose?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the historical cases of the sixth century Roman Empire, the 10th century Byzantine Empire, and the 16th century Ottoman Empire, adaptive processes at the state level strengthened resilience but resulted in a differentiated burden of resilience for elites and nonelites (Izdebski et al, ). Even when enacting positive change, “change can sometimes be a zero‐sum game, meaning that certain actors benefit at the expense of others … from a governance perspective, the potentially contentious nature of this change can be disguised by the vagueness of resilience terminology” (de Milliano et al, , p. 21). It has been repeatedly stressed that one person's resilience may be another person's vulnerability (Alexander, ; Cote & Nightingale, ; Sapountzaki, ).…”

Section: Resilience For Whom?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The power to define resilience in social–hydrological systems: Toward a power‐sensitive resilience framework

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the early work on defining and analyzing resilience in domains such as engineering, ecology and psychology, the concept has gained significant traction in many fields of research and practice. It has also become a very powerful justification for various policy goals in the water sector, evident in terms like flood resilience, river resilience, and water resilience. At the same time, a substantial body of literature has developed that questions the resilience concept's systems ontology, natural science roots and alleged conservatism, and criticizes resilience thinking for not addressing power issues. In this study, we review these critiques with the aim to develop a framework for power‐sensitive resilience analysis. We build on the three faces of power to conceptualize the power to define resilience. We structure our discussion of the relevant literature into five questions that need to be reflected upon when applying the resilience concept to social–hydrological systems. These questions address: (a) resilience of what, (b) resilience at what scale, (c) resilience to what, (d) resilience for what purpose, and (e) resilience for whom; and the implications of the political choices involved in defining these parameters for resilience building or analysis. Explicitly considering these questions enables making political choices explicit in order to support negotiation or contestation on how resilience is defined and used. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance. Engineering Water > Planning Water.

show abstract

Resilience: The Holy Grail or Yet Another Hype?

Cited by 11 publications

References 21 publications

Developing Equitable Primary Health Care in Conflict-Affected Settings: Expert Perspectives From the Frontlines

Developing Equitable Primary Health Care in Conflict-Affected Settings: Expert Perspectives From the Frontlines

Centering at the Margins: Critical Community Resilience Praxis

The power to define resilience in social–hydrological systems: Toward a power‐sensitive resilience framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About