An international exploration of what resilience is and how to develop it in social work with children and families

Undergraduate Social Work BSc (Hons) dissertation by Dave Rossiter, May 2020.

Introduction

This desk-based literature review seeks to analyse five pieces of international research, explaining what resilience is for young people and their families, and how it can be developed. Framing the context of and reason for this review in the background section, this review then finds three key themes around individual resilience, environmental resilience, and how to develop resilience. The strengths and limitations of this review are discussed before the themes are further analysed to unpick the implications for social work practice in the UK. From this, recommendations are made to improve practice around resilience, including education, service and organisational culture development, and key areas for social workers to enhance within their interpersonal and community practice.

Please note that this has been edited from a fuller dissertation with more extensive article analysis and thematic mapping.

Background

If you were to search through all 111 pages of Working Together to Safeguard Children (DfE, 2018) you wouldn’t find the word resilience once. Yet without resilience, you arguably have nothing, on a personal level, to counter adversity (Daniel, Wassel & Gilligan, 2010). So, what is this word and why is it so important in Social Work practice?

The word resilience has Latin origins — resilire — which means to return to a prior position. Its definition within Social Work is more complicated. Daniel, Wassel and Gilligan (2010) put resilience and vulnerability at each opposing end of a spectrum, citing the most simplistic definition of resilience as “normal development under difficult conditions.” Gilligan (1997, cited Daniel, Wassel & Gilligan 2010) goes further, introducing the “concept of potential” while Rutter’s (1987, cited Cocker and Allain 2013) definition features “hope and optimism in the face of adversity.” These wider definitions go beyond resilience being simply an opposing force to traumatic or adversarial experiences. This literature review will seek to gain a consensus of understanding through the articles selected, being mindful of the different and nuanced uses of the term.

The research reviewed in this paper comes from across the world. While there are cultural considerations that must be made (Ungar, 2008) (Atwool, 2006, cited Cocker and Allain 2013), there is also the potential to consider resilience as an attribute with international commonalities (Masten, 2014). An intentionally international approach is being taken, given that more than 70% of the general population has been exposed to adversity, and those most likely to be affected are marginalised communities, including racial and ethnic minorities (Wilton and Williams, 2019).

Resilience in social work practice is not uncontested. There are counterarguments such as dilution of the term (from its origins in a crisis context) through social reconstruction (Prowell, 2019), questioning subjectivity in resilience discourse, and linking the idea of resilience to governmentality and neoliberalism (Garrett, 2016). The critical approach used in this review will consider these and other critiques when evaluating the literature and making recommendations for practice.

The current picture of “difficult conditions”, or adversity, that young people face is significant. Challenges for young people include unemployment, poverty and homelessness, physical and mental health, and suicide (Scott, 2018). With increasing reports of children being subject to cruelty and neglect, and with 198 children aged between 15 and 19 dying by suicide in 2016 (NSPCC, 2018), these statistics compound concerns about the pressures faced by young people and the environments they are growing up in.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights painted a grim picture for the 14 million people living in poverty within the UK (UN, 2019). Families which face multiple problems (DfE, 2012) are more likely to have no parents in work, live in poor quality or overcrowded housing, have no parents with qualifications, have maternal mental health problems, have a disability, and have a low income or not be able to afford food and clothes. Many of these, aside from being adverse conditions for optimal development, are also risk factors for child abuse (Sneddon, 2012).

Of those living in the most deprived areas in the UK, white people are the second smallest proportion at 8.7 percent. In these areas you are three times more likely to find someone Bangladeshi or Pakistani, and twice as likely to find someone Black, than White British (ONS, 2018). This is a driving factor behind steering this literature review in the exploration of a multi-cultural, or perhaps omni-cultural, approach to the development of resilience.

Daniel, Wassel and Gilligan (2010) explain how resilience forms part of a child’s protective factors, and how this counters the child’s vulnerability. For any children who have statutory Social Work involvement in their lives, whether under Section 17 or 47 of the Children Act 1989 or as Corporate Parent under Section 1 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, there will be inherent vulnerability. Therefore, there is likely to be opportunity for practice or intervention that develops the child’s resilience.

Given the state of welfare in the UK discussed above, developing resilience in the children and families supported by social workers should be given much higher regard than it currently is. This literature review is seeking to explore international perspectives of resilience to understand whether there are universal elements of resilience that can be supported across cultures, and how this could be done in practice.

Theme 1: What is individual resilience?

Wexler et al (2013) studied 20 Inupiaq (native Alaskan) children aged 11 to 18 years old, potentially falling slightly below the threshold for “theoretical saturation” (Orme and Shemmings, 2010, pp. 145–146), where the data becomes less influenced by additional participants. The study population was homogenous, and therefore likely to have less variation, meaning a smaller sample size is sufficient (Krysik & Finn, 2010). Orme and Shemmings (2010) say samples should include a spectrum of participant experiences, which this research did through purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is acknowledged as not being generalisable (Orme and Shemmings, 2010), however the research was used in a cross-site comparison, forming part of the “Circumpolar Indigenous Pathways to Adulthood” project. A local steering committee, formed of multigenerational indigenous community members, supported the research team in developing the semi-structured interview guide, identifying participants, and interpreting the results. The interview recordings were analysed using ATLAS.ti, a “computerised data analysis package.” Grinnell & Unrau (2018) say this can lose the human insight into the conversations, however, researchers constructed a narrative summary including thoughts on environmental influences of the participants, maintaining the human element.

Wexler et al (2013) explored the key challenges faced by this group of children, what resources they had to overcome the challenges, and the meaning they made from those experiences. It was found that a sense of competence was important, developed through involvement in sporting or subsistence activities which were seen to be supported by adult figures. This was “mentioned several times to describe how parents show they care.”

Being responsible, including things that helped directly, like fixing things or doing things to help them achieve in school or avoid punishment, was important. Responsibilities toward family and friends included watching siblings, helping friends get ready for school, or visiting elderly relatives. Finally, they took on responsibilities for helping within the community, through which the youths “seemed to gain a sense of purpose and personal-wellbeing.” It was felt that unselfish acts supported the development of a stronger, positive sense of self.

The research highlights self-reliance, with participants showing the attitude that “you can’t run away from your problems.” This self-reliance, “seeking out resources, relationships, and opportunities”, created and enabled environments in which they could exercise responsibility, autonomy and “community connectedness.” Relationships and reciprocity are key components through which the Inupiaq youths gain and strengthen their resilience.

Betancourt et al (2011) explored how Rwandan families affected by HIV or AIDS managed their stress, what “strengths and personal or collective resources” they had, and what factors resulted in more resilient outcomes. They used a mixed-methods approach, starting with a cohort of 68 HIV- or AIDS-affected caregiving children aged between 10 and 17 years old, purposively selected to have a wide range of participants using maximum variation sampling (Krysik & Finn, 2010). A free listing exercise asked participants to list everything they could think of on the topics of strength and resilience. A sample size of 68 is sufficient for a key listing exercise (Schrauf & Sanchez, 2010). Data from the free listing exercise was thematically analysed and informed the course of discussion for “key informant” interviews. This second group of 56 people were selected for their personal experiences, 37 adults and 19 children, with an additional ten people selected for their professional expertise. The data from the key informant interviews was robustly analysed through category construction informed by grounded theory and thematic content analysis.

Betancourt et al (2011) reflects on the aspects of resilience in the local language of the key informants. They found that kwihangana, meaning patience or perseverance, and kwigirira ikizere, meaning self-esteem, were “identified as important contributors to resilience in children.” Contributions to kwihangana included comments around maintaining social links and interacting and playing with others. One of the key informants described how children with kwihangana “think about how they will live in the future, studying, and getting a job. They accept their problems because they know they are not the first nor the last to encounter those problems.” Self-motivation was also a component of kwihangana. Behavioural terms were also noted in relation to kwihangana, including “well behaved, hard-working, good-hearted, and calm.” The ability to seek and accept help also featured in the definition of this term, alongside regular prayer. This study reflects on correlations with previous research, where the ability to express problems, connect with others, and find meaning from problems were key components of kwihangana (Zraly & Nyirazinyoye, 2010).

Kwigirira ikizere was felt to have fewer links to behaviours and reflected more on the mindset of the children involved. It came across as a sense that “life will continue” or “feeling one must survive” despite the challenges the children faced. In some ways this was seen as having aspirations, having courage, being motivated, being persistent, and having hope and optimism for the future, though it was also considered a sense of inert strength and “having a strong heart.”

Sulimani-Aidan (2018), critiqued in the third theme, found that positive self-perception was felt to be an important individual resilience factor. This was made up of several contributing sub-themes, including self-esteem, self-belief, and self-awareness. One of the respondents said, “adolescents I work with who are more resilient have higher selfesteem. They are not afraid to fail, and if they fail, they do not break into pieces.”

Some respondents struggled to articulate other elements of personal resilience, but key phrases like being “less overwhelmed by changes” and coping with changes and uncertainty all point toward self-confidence; whether that confidence is in themselves as an active strength or in more of a passive, endurance context. These characteristics were described in the study as a child’s “inner strength.”

This links to the second main concept of personal resilience in this study; a positive outlook. This was defined as “the ability to hold a positive perspective on life and the future despite their challenges, adversity, crises and abusive history.”

A final, outlying comment was that talents were rarely considered by the participants as significant in the context of individual resilience. Instead, respondents focussed more on individual traits which they felt contributed to resilient youth, for example the young person’s sense of humour, emotional intelligence, or friendliness.

Across the three papers there was a consensus on several aspects of individual resilience, including self-esteem, self-motivation, and self-confidence. Where self-motivation gave young people the will to try and self-confidence gave them the ability to fail and try again. Finally, a sense of reciprocity from their environment. For participants this meant helping others, having a sense of “community connectedness”, or being prosocial and interacting well with others felt rewarding and beneficial to them.

Looking at the more outlying comments, religion and, more specifically, prayer were only mentioned in one paper (Betancourt et al, 2011). However, it is important to recognise that this could be a source of personal or environmental resilience for a young person, particularly where they are from a different culture. The other standalone comment is from the final paper, relating to talents (Sulimani-Aidan, 2018), though this may link to Wexler et al’s (2013) reference to a sense of competence.

Theme 2: What is environmental resilience?

Sanders et al (2015) studied a population of 605 children aged between 12 and 17 across New Zealand. Children with a high number of services involved, the target group, were felt to have “been exposed to significant harm during childhood and adolescence.” Locations were purposively chosen to include both urban and rural settings. The research set out to explore a correlation between many services being involved in these children’s lives and outcomes for the child, with negative outcomes being mediated by the presence of positive youth development practices.

The research quantitative and uses the Pathways to Resilience in Youth Measure survey instrument, developed by Michael Ungar — part of this research team, and the 4-H study of Positive Youth Development (Theokas & Lerner, 2006, cited Sanders et al, 2015, p. 46). The latter used for questions around “delinquency” and risk. The results were analysed in a “multi-step procedure.” This included two forms of factor analysis, confirmatory and exploratory; a test to show whether the data followed expected distribution (Bell, 2017). Path analysis was conducted to see whether different factors acted as mediators on outcomes. Finally, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to assess the differences in results across the three ethnic groups identified within the study, highlighting any significant inequalities (Orme & Shemmings, 2010). The sample size, per group, was sufficient for casual-comparative analysis, except for people recorded as “other ethnicity”, though those findings are not published (Orme & Shemmings, 2010).

Sanders et al (2015) found environmental risks had a strong, negative relationship with resilience. Further findings showed children with elevated environmental risks were also less likely to encounter services which could build resilience. Identifying environmental risks was noted as sometimes challenging. Hypothesising from their findings, Sanders et al (2015) believe that a focus on environmental risks, the potential origin of many individual risks, may present an opportunity to have implicit benefits on individual risks.

Piel et al (2017) conducted research with foster families in a Southern state of the United States of America to understand what social support meant to them and how it helped familial resilience. This study used mixed methods to gain a broad understanding before seeking more detail (McLaughlin, 2012). The broad range of views initially sought through a quantitative survey, followed up with two interviews, arranged four to six weeks apart, with a purposively sampled, smaller group of families. The first sample was 681 foster parents, while the follow-up sample was 18 families participating fully in the two interviews. Results were analysed and triangulated by at least two researchers and steps were taken to avoid or manage issues such as bias and researcher reactivity (Orme & Shemmings, 2010). The findings were framed against the domains of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, cited Crawford & Walker 2007, pp. 19–20) ecological systems theory.

In the microsystem level of support, Piel et al (2017) found that foster families recognised the “importance of reciprocal transactions” with their closest relationships, including their children, whether fostered, adopted, or natural. Beyond this network, having external support from peers from a range of backgrounds helped. Professionals were identified as essential in providing “tangible and emotional support.” Reciprocity across these relationships was highly valued.

Foster parents felt that, at a macrosystem level, “stigma associated with being involved in child welfare” was an issue. Families reflected on how “overwhelmed the system is”, particularly when trying to navigate it. It was also noted that families found it difficult “working through the complex behavioural health system” which may be reflective of organisational culture.

In the exosystem, communication was again highlighted as critical. However, a nuance at this level was the feeling that decisions were being made without their input. A lack of information regarding children’s histories was also felt to make the initial placement period more problematic, particularly when paired with the families discussing the importance of advocating for their foster children. This involved a coordination of background information and good communication with “providers, case workers, courts, and biological families.”

The chronosystem reiterated that stigma around incidents could harm familial resilience. Foster carers were noted as finding resilience in being prosocial. Findings reflect that they are often very positive in not only working together in a mentoring capacity but also in influencing public opinion and talking openly about their experiences with others. This included recruiting new foster carers along the way, sharing a culture of foster care. It was also important to foster families to actively support their children in understanding their biological beginnings, irrespective of how well-maintained those relationships were. Foster carers reflected that, in the chronosystem, “the need for adjustment was ongoing, as they learned to adapt to changing circumstances.”

Foster families were found to be flexible, creative and attentive in adapting over time as children and families developed. It was noted that families learned to navigate and to communicate effectively with the systems they functioned within despite the systemic inequalities they face “depending on location, awareness, and agency” as well as eligibility. The paper criticises a “one-size-fits-all” approach, with systems needing to acknowledge and reflect the ecology of the families they support.

Betancourt et al (2011) found two areas of environmental resilience. The first was at family level where they found kwizerana, relating to family unity and trust, and kurera neza, referring to good parenting. The second was at a community level, called ubufasha abaturage batanga, which means “support from others.”

Kwizerana was seen as reaching agreements through talking together, living in harmony or in a unified way, and cooperating. Mutual respect and being able to enjoy each other’s company were also highlighted. Kurera neza was seen within families as parentings being “strong disciplinarians who teach children useful life-skills” while meeting the child’s basic needs and showing love. Open dialect was again seen as important. The final important trait with families showing kurera neza was around bringing up children with the country’s values, or “parenting for the nation.” One noted aspect of these national values is active contribution to the local community.

Ubufasha abaturage batanga is demonstrated in communities through a “willingness to provide help when able” and discussing issues as a community. This includes supporting others who are isolated, in despair or sick. Help given includes giving things to others when they are in need, but also giving time or support when they have nothing practical to share. This article notes that where help is given by families with ubufasha abaturage batanga there is no discrimination if the family receiving the help has HIV or AIDS.

Across the papers there are some key messages. Firstly, Sanders et al‘s (2015) reflection on how critical environmental resilience is, and how it can be difficult to identify issues; environments which can also be inherently detrimental to aspects of individual resilience. Piel at al’s (2017) findings show that foster carers use their own resources and agency to engage in their environments. Foster carer’s experiences of challenging professional environments fit with Sanders et al’s (2015) findings that services, particularly their cultures, are pivotal in developing resilience. Piel et al (2017) highlight how fragmented service provision creates a challenging support network for foster carers to traverse in order to feel supported.

Piel at al (2017) and Betancourt (2011) both found that reciprocity between the people and their ecosystems was important. A challenge to this reciprocity, mentioned in both papers, was stigma and prejudice. For foster carers, stigma was felt to have a direct impact on their familial resilience (Piel at al 2017), whereas the families affected by AIDS and HIV benefitted from a culture which was more free from prejudice, with communities supporting people irrespective of their differences. For foster carers in Piel et al’s (2017) study, a distinct set of community values appeared to be important in establishing supportive social networks.

Theme 3: How to develop resilience

Wexler et al (2013) set out to get an understanding of the key challenges faced by Inupiaq young people, what resources they had to overcome the challenges, and the meaning they made from those experiences. Wexler et al (2013) felt that the findings contributed to a wider theme in resilience research; supporting young people focussing on resilience rather than risk, “creating environments that facilitate positive youth development.” It was felt that initiatives around developing “life skills” in isolation was insufficient. Programs should be developed which enrich the young person’s interconnectedness with their community while encouraging agency in the young people; “inviting them to decide how, when and with whom.” Empowering the young people in this way would “provide relevant and important responsibilities and competencies” which would feed into their sense of community values while also supporting them to overcome adverse environments. The “drive for self-reliance” and “eagerness to act in ways that are valued by their families and community” was discussed as a strong finding, reinforcing the values of the community and showing the appetite that the young people had to embrace and reflect them.

Wexler et al (2013) note that any community intervention should be mindful of the issues faced by the community, where local context would be important to understand. For example, young people in this study were facing rapid social change, creating a wider generational gap and consequentially there has been an increase in associated alcohol abuse and mental health problems including suicide.

Sulimani-Aidan’s (2018) research focussed on perceptions of resilience from a group of social workers working with Israeli boys aged between eight and seventeen. A random sample of 40 social workers working across 15 residential care settings with more than two years’ experience were initially chosen. Of that group of 40, four declined to be involved and a further six were unable to meet face to face, leaving a good sample size (Orme & Shemmings, 2010) of 30 Social Workers.

The Social Workers were asked open questions in semi-structured interviews, with the open questions seeking to explore the participant’s views on areas including “factors that promote resilience”, “their definition of resilience”, and how they would promote resilience. Data was analysed using grounded theory, with two interviewers and the lead researcher coding and iteratively identifying the themes. The last stage was to contact the participants with a summary report and then incorporate their feedback into the final data analysis.

Sulimani-Aidan (2018) acknowledges that a limitation of this study was that it was conducted with the social workers rather than the children themselves, or a combination of the two. There is also an acknowledgement that the participants gave feedback from a professional perspective, and that non-professional adults involved in the lives of the youths may have different views.

Exploring ways of increasing resilience was one of Sulimani-Aiden’s (2018) research aims. Findings uncovered two main themes; individual therapy, developing the children’s individual aspects of resilience, and an ecological approach, to work with and develop the networks that the children had around them.

Showing love and care was fundamental to improving resilience, through a persistent presence, encouragement, empathy, and belief in the young person. Working with the young person to improve their self-esteem and supporting a positive self-perception, through reflecting on their successes and strengths as well as “acknowledging their weaknesses and accepting them” is important in meaningful professional relationships that develop resilience.

Developing the formal and informal networks and working in collaboration with them was significant, with respondents also highlighting the importance of family involvement. Within this, support to develop new relationships “with meaningful adults such as mentors” was also considered another way of ecologically developing the young person’s resilience.

This research also explores the divide in Social Worker’s perception as to whether resilience is an outcome or a process. The former described as someone going through incident of adversity and emerging “well-adjusted” (Vaillant & Davis, 2000, cited Sulimani-Aiden, 2018, p. 47), while the latter is described as an ongoing effort and an active process of engaging “in various ways within contexts of adversity, utilizing protective mechanisms and processes to adjust or minimize risk factors” (Van Breda, 2017, cited Sulimani-Aiden, 2018, p. 47). Where practitioners view resilience as a fixed trait through which children achieve outcomes, “this perspective could limit the range of interventions due to the perceived stability of personality traits.” In a more systemic context, considering resilience as a process was felt to be “more useful in designing prevention and intervention strategies” because young people may continue to live with ongoing adversity or risk, with an example being children growing up in care.

Sanders et al’s (2015) findings show that where children have been exposed to significant adversity, services with a positive youth development approach enhanced resilience processes and, in turn, wellbeing outcomes. The paper attests, though without evidence of agency analysis in their findings, that these positive gains can be seen across any service irrespective of whether the service is statutory or non-statutory, or which service type is being provided, for example “mental health, child welfare, education [or] juvenile justice systems.” While there is a generic benefit reported through the positive youth development approach, the research also highlights the importance of understanding the culture being supported, pointing to differing needs between Māori, Pacific Island, and Pākehā (people of New Zealand from European descent) communities.

The research suggests that practitioners should: “recognise and take advantage of the positive resources youth bring into interventions; harness these strengths in the support process; and identify when resources are missing and compensate for these.” However, the research also acknowledges the significant link between environmental risks and less resilience and how these risks can be challenging to identify.

The papers agree on several points. Firstly, advocating for a systemic move away from a risk perspective to developing resilience through respect, autonomy for the young people, with strong, open, and positive professional relationships, referred to by Sulimani-Aidan (2018) as “individual therapy” and by Sanders et al (2015) as positive youth development. Wexler et al (2013) also suggest that a change of approach in interventions should be to direct young people more toward community-based intervention, a sentiment echoed by Sanders et al (2015). Sanders et al (2015) assert that a change in organisational culture could happen in any service, with benefits for the people being supported. Sulimani-Aiden (2018) does warn against a view that is too insular, and advocates for professionals to be more mindful of both personal factors and other environmental factors in resilience development, including the relationships young people have with significant but non-professional adult figures such as mentors.

Clear acknowledgement that resilience is dynamic, as a process rather than a trait, was felt to be important in practice (Sulimani-Aidan, 2018) (Sanders et al, 2015), particularly when working with young people who would remain in risky environments and continue to be challenged by adversity. Ensuring that practitioners have a real understanding of resilience was shown to give practitioners a wider range of considerations in supporting young people (Sulimani-Aidan, 2018).

While the papers agree that there is a commonality in how resilience can be developed across cultures, both Sanders et al (2015) and Wexler et al (2013) caution that community issues must be understood to give the right context for support.

Discussion and Recommendations

In seeking to explore international perspectives of resilience with an aim of understanding universal elements of resilience and how this could be done in practice, this literature review found three main themes of individual resilience, environmental resilience, and suggestions on how resilience should be developed with young people and their families.

In exploring individual resilience, the theme unearthed core concepts of the self as being fundamental to resilience. This included phrases such as self-esteem, self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-motivation. On environmental resilience, the theme suggested that an environmental reciprocity was key — in that the environment gave resilience through networks of support, but also that supporting peers and the feeling of giving and being of benefit to the environment was key. Finally, in considering how to develop and improve the resilience of the people supported by social workers, there were suggestions ranging from direct support to the individual to improve self-perception through to systemic and cultural changes.

Resilience was a fascinating but challenging area to research. Having a range of definitions, not to mention numerous synonyms or equivalences, meant that finding strong and relevant studies was not easy. For example, there is a wealth of research on resilience in social-ecological systems relating, unhelpfully in the case of this literature review, to marine life.

This is the first time this author has sought to undertake a desk-based literature review. As such, the author is not well versed in drawing analogies between papers and themes and has endeavoured to make sure robust assertions are being made in relation to the data (Greetham, 2014). This review, and the thematic analysis detailed previously, was undertaken in an inductive way with an interpretivist epistemology (McLaughlin, 2012). However, the author is aware that this is still not an exemption from potential bias (Pannucci & Wilkins, 2010) (McLaughlin, 2012). For example, the author hypothesised, before undertaking this literature review, that resilience would feature largely as an individual trait, which has clearly been proven wrong. Individual resilience has still arisen as a theme, but it is evidenced through clear links to the original research and triangulated between the papers.

Understanding the articles required the development of new skills and knowledge, supported by several books as referenced throughout. Some of the terms used, particularly in Sanders et al’s (2015) quantitative paper, were very scientific and required extensive further research to understand. Several papers were or involved qualitative studies, and were inductive in their approach (McLaughlin, 2012) — seeking to explore and understand resilience in a kind of focussed ethnographical way (Cruz & Higginbottom, 2013). These findings were homogeneous, in that they aligned well to show clear themes emerging, however it must be noted that qualitative studies are typically not seen as generalisable due to their focus on the experiences of a limited number of people.

The focus of narrative reviews on prevailing expert opinion has proved true to an extent in this literature review (Greenhalgh, Thorne & Malterud, 2018), such as Michael Ungar, who was involved in one of the studies and referenced in others, and Ann Masten. However, youth resilience in social work is a smaller niche of research, compared to child protection or domestic abuse, and therefore likely that there will be more limited range of authors.

As the themes between the papers emerged, they bore a striking resemblance to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, cited Crawford & Walker 2007, pp. 19–20) micro, mezzo, and macro domains of his ecological systems theory. This provides a methodical way to review the themes and consider their application to social work practice.

At the micro level, resilience has been clearly linked with many aspects of the self. As far back as 1985, Rutter (1985, cited Cocker & Allain, 2019, p. 203) expressed that three things that were important in working with children were: “self-esteem and confidence, belief in their own self-efficacy and ability to deal with change and adaptation, a repertoire of social problem-solving approaches.” In terms of developing these aspects of self, Horwath and Platt (2019) write that resilience can be developed as part of any type of intervention, suggesting that this need not be a topic given disproportionate teaching time in social work education. Treisman (2017) features a whole chapter on practical ways of developing resilience, including praise and encouragement, supporting children to identify positive traits in themselves, validating and acknowledging emotions, and supporting children to develop their own sense of agency and ownership amongst other facets of resilience.

The Professional Standards state that social workers should “value each person as an individual, recognising their strengths and abilities” (SWE, 2019, Professional Standard 1.1). However, supporting and developing resilience is not always apparent in the national policy around social work with children. BASW’s (2018) Professional Capabilities Framework initially highlights resilience only in a professional context for aspiring student social workers. Between final placement and experienced social worker capabilities there is a stepped requirement from acknowledging the importance of resilience as a concept, alongside other concepts, through to understanding and then applying that understanding. In more advanced social work roles, the word resilience disappears entirely. Sulimani-Aiden (2018) raises concerns that a limited view of resilience, as a fixed trait rather than a process, limits the support offered by social workers. Clapton (2012), in line with the paradigm of resilience being a process, believes that there is importance not only in supporting resilience in “significant turning points” but also in the everyday interactions, because these small changes can have a cumulative, “snowball effect” for that person.

The mezzo layer of findings shows that resilience is inseparable from people’s environments. In the context of Maslow’s (1970, cited Hothersall & Maas-Lowit, 2010, p. 7) hierarchy of needs, self-esteem and self-actualisation sit at the top, and are dependent on a range of more environmental needs being met. There are commonalities in that resilient communities having strong cultures and a good sense of reciprocity, though this can be challenged by stigma within the community. People’s environments were also noted by Piel et al (2017) as sometimes being particularly challenging to navigate when working with statutory services, comments echoed by Jenson & Fraser (2011). Given the importance of reciprocity, systems that are difficult to navigate will likely reduce the resilience of people engaging with them further since resilience is a “two way ecological street” (Clapton, 2012). This includes positive parental involvement (Betancourt et al, 2011), even for children separated from their parents (Sulimani-Aidan, 2018).

Cultural consideration in the mezzo aligns with Thompson’s (2012, pp. 32–34) cultural domain when considering anti-oppressive practice. McLaughlin (2012) writes about the importance of research into indigenous or aboriginal peoples and that cultural competence is key in practising in an anti-oppressive way. It is important that social workers understand the sometimes-marginalised communities they work with and recognise the strengths within those populations (Negi & Furman, 2010). Sanders et al’s (2015) study attests that cultural consideration is important in supporting the development of resilience, with Wexler (2013) in agreement, explaining that indigenous Alaskans had specific challenges within their communities and culture. This may be, implicitly, due to the significant negative correlation found by Sanders et al (2015) between environmental risks and resilience. Betancourt et al (2011) and Piel (2017) reported, though not strongly, that faith groups can be an important element of community resilience.

When considering the macro implications of the themes above, two strands emerge: service design or influence and the importance of strong and positive culture.

Social workers should act as agents of change through social entrepreneurship and social intrapreneurship (Nandan, London & Bent-Goodley, 2015), the former meaning working with other organisations to develop new services and practices, the latter being the same service and practice development but within an organisation. Through these same processes social workers can also act to dispel stigma. However, government requirements advocate for social workers to act as change agents in adult social care settings, while there is an emphasis on compliance within frustrating systems in children’s social care settings (DH, 2015) (DfE, 2014). This is a worrying juxtaposition for social workers as agents of change, at a time when governmental policy has eroded the opportunity for social workers to challenge the way services are run or delivered (Tunstill, 2019). However, resilience can be developed through the small and the big actions and therefore social workers should be able to have some agency of change, even if just on an interpersonal level, irrespective of how oppressive the surrounding systems are (Clapton, 2012).

Sanders et al (2015) and Wexler et al (2013) would advocate the adoption of a positive youth development (PYD) approach. Bonell et al (2016) conducted a systemic review of PYD research and found that PYD approaches provide young people with “positive expectations; enduring, affective relationships with adults; and diverse activities and settings” and improvements in self-regulation, all personal elements of resilience. A PYD approach could promote more positive and affective encounters with services for young people and their families.

This review makes the following recommendations.

• Social workers should actively increase resilience in young people and families, supporting them in an honest, pragmatic, and strengths-based way to develop, understand and accept themselves.
• Social workers should work with different communities and cultures in ways that seek to identify and support resilience.
• Social work education providers should teach resilience concepts, with methods of developing resilience included in skills work.
• In commissioning social care services, a positive youth development approach, or similar, should be used to support the development of resilience in people, their families, and their communities.
• Key policy-setting organisations such as DfE, DHSC, SWE and BASW should actively promote ways of working that develop resilience.

Conclusion

While the definition of resilience still varies significantly, depending on which author you read, what constitutes resilience is much clearer. This intentionally international review of the common components of resilience has unearthed some shared aspects from the research reviewed, but has also highlighted the importance of difference, too. Resilience is a complex and nuanced term, including many aspects of the self but also many external aspects, from immediate families through to organisational cultures and community values and beliefs.

Recommendations for practising social workers arising from these findings reflect that array of opportunities for change. These range from working with young people and families to support better self-identities through to acting as organisational and community change agents, while acknowledging the not insignificant challenge in doing so.

Ultimately, resilience is best developed by supporting young people and their families with their perception of themselves and their involvement with their immediate and wider environment. For social workers, this is best achieved through a clear understanding of resilience, supported, and encouraged by systems, from local through to national government, designed to put resilience at the heart of practice.

References

BASW (2018) The professional capabilities framework (PCF). Available at: https://www.basw.co.uk/professional-development/professional-capabilities-framework-pcf/the-pcf [Accessed 21/5/2020]

Bell, L. (2017) Research methods for social workers. Palgrave Macmillan.

Betancourt, T., Meyers-Ohki, S., Stulac, S., Barrera, A. E., Mushashi, C. & Beardslee, W. (2011) ‘Nothing can defeat combined hands (Abashize hamew ntakibananira): protective processes and resilience in Rwandan children and families affected by HIV/AIDS.’ Journal of Social Science & Medicine, Volume 73. pp. 693–701. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.053

Bonell, C., Hinds, K., Dickson, K., Thomas, J., Fletcher, A., Murphy, S., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Bonell, C. and Campbell, R. (2016) ‘What is positive youth development and how might it reduce substance use and violence? A systematic review and synthesis of theoretical literature.’ BMC Public Health, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.1186/s12889–016–2817–3

Children Act (1989) Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents

Children and Social Work Act (2017) Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/16/section/1/enacted

Clapton, G. (2012) ‘Milestones in adoption and fostering research’ in Davies, M. (2012) Social work with children and families. Palgrave Macmillan.

Cocker, C. & Allain, L. (2013) Social Work with looked after children. Learning Matters. 2nd Edition.

Cocker, C. & Allain, L. (2019) Social work with looked after children. Learning Matters. 3rd Edition.

Crawford, K. & Walker, J. (2007) Social work and human development. Learning Matters. 2nd Edition.

Cruz, E. & Higginbottom, G. (2013) ‘The use of focused ethnography in nursing research.’ Nurse Researcher, Issue 20, pp. 36–43. DOI: 10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.36.e305

Daniel, B., Wassell, S. & Gilligan, R. (2010) Child development for child care and protection workers. Jessica Kingsley, London. 2nd Edition.

DfE (2012) Families with multiple problems. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/families-with-multiple-problems [Accessed 27/9/2019]

DfE (2014) Knowledge and skills for child and family social work. Department for Education. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/338718/140730_Knowledge_and_skills_statement_final_version_AS_RH_Checked.pdf [Accessed 25/5/2020]

DfE (2018) Working together to safeguard children: a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779401/Working_Together_to_Safeguard-Children.pdf [Accessed 17/11/2019]

DH (2015) Knowledge and skills statement for social workers in adult services. Department of Health. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411957/KSS.pdf [Accessed 25/5/2020]

Garrett, P. (2016) ‘Questioning tales of ‘ordinary magic’: ‘resilience’ and neo-liberal reasoning.’ British Journal of Social Work, Issue 46, Pp. 1909–1925. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcv017

Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S. & Malterud, K. (2018) ‘Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?’ European Journal of Clinical Investigation, June 2018, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.1111/eci.12931

Greetham, B. (2014) How to write your undergraduate dissertation. Palgrave Macmillan. 2nd Edition.

Grinnell, R. & Unrau, Y. (2018) Social work research and evaluation. Oxford University Press. 11th Edition.

Horwath, J. & Platt, D. (2019) The child’s world: The essential guide to assessing vulnerable children, young people and their families. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 3rd Edition.

Hothersall, S. & Maas-Lowit, M. (2010) Need, risk and protection in social work practice. Learning Matters.

Jenson, J. & Fraser, M. (2011) Social policy for children and families: A risk and resilience perspective. SAGE Publishing. 2nd Edition.

Krysik, J. & Finn, J. (2010) Research for effective social work practice. Routledge. 2nd Edition.

Masten, A. (2014) ‘Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth.’ Journal of Child Development, Volume 85, Number 1, Pp. 6–20. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12205

McLaughlin, H. (2012) Understanding social work research. Sage Publishing. 2nd Edition.

Nandan, M., London, M. & Bent-Goodley, T. (2015) ‘Social workers as social change agents: Social innovation, social intrapreneurship, and social entrepreneurship.’ Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership & Governance, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp. 38–56, DOI: 10.1080/23303131.2014.955236

Negi, N. & Furman, R. (2010) Transnational social work practice. Columbia University Press.

NSPCC (2018) How safe are our children? 2018. Available at: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/media/1067/how-safe-are-our-children-2018.pdf [Accessed 27/9/2019]

ONS (2018) People living in deprived neighbourhoods. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/people-living-in-deprived-neighbourhoods/latest#people-living-in-the-most-deprived-10-of-neighbourhoods-by-ethnicity [Accessed 16/10/2019]

Orme, J. & Shemmings, D. (2010) Developing research based social work practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Pannucci, C. & Wilkins, E. (2010) ‘Identifying and avoiding bias in research.’ Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Volume 126, Issue 2, pp. 619–625. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bc

Piel, M., Geiger, J., Julien-Chinn, F. & Lietz, C. (2017) ‘An ecological systems approach to understanding social support in foster family resilience.’ Child & Family Social Work, Volume 22, pp. 1034–1043. DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12323

Prowell, A. (2019) ‘Using post-structuralism to rethink risk and resilience: recommendations for Social Work education, practice, and research.’ Journal of Social Work, Volume 64, Issue 2, April 2019, Pp. 123–130. DOI: doi.org/10.1093/sw/swz007

Sanders, J., Munford, R., Thimasarn-Anwar, T., Liebenberg, L. & Ungar, M. (2015) ‘The role of positive youth development practices in building resilience and enhancing wellbeing for at-risk youth.’ Child Abuse and Neglect. Volume 42, pp. 40–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.006

Schrauf, R. W., & Sanchez, J. (2010) ‘Age Effects and Sample Size in Free Listing.’ Field Methods, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 70–87. DOI: 10.1177/1525822x09359747

Scott, E. (2018) Challenges facing young people. House of Lords. Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2018-0137 [Accessed 27/9/2019]

Sneddon, H. (2012) ‘The challenging nature of research in child protection’, in Davies M. (ed.) Social Work with children and families. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sulimani-Aidan, Y. (2018) ‘Promoting resilience among adolescents in care from their social workers’ perspectives.’ Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 94, pp. 43–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.09.005

SWE (2019) Professional standards. Available at: https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/media/1640/1227_socialworkengland_standards_prof_standards_final-aw.pdf [Accessed 12/1/2020]

Thompson, N. (2012) Anti-discriminatory practice. Palgrave Macmillan. 5th Edition.

Treisman, K. (2017) A therapeutic treasure box for working with children and adolescents with developmental trauma. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Tunstill, J. (2019) ‘Pruned, policed and privatised: The knowledge base for children and families social work in England and Wales in 2019.’ Social Work and Social Sciences Review, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp. 57–76. DOI: 10.1921/swssr.v20i2.1285

UN (2019) Visit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. Available at: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/39/Add.1 [Accessed 27/9/2019]

Ungar, M. (2008) ‘Resilience across cultures.’ British Journal of Social Work, Issue 38, Pp. 218–235. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl343

Wexler,L., Jernigan, K., Mazzoti, J., Baldwin, E., Griffin, M., Joule, L., & Garoutte, J. (2013) ‘Lived challenges and getting through them: Alaska native youth narratives as a way to understand resilience.’ Health Promotion Practice, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp. 10–17. DOI: 10.1177/1524839913475801

Wilton, J. and Williams, A. (2019) Engaging with complexity: providing effective trauma-informed care for women. Mental Health Foundation.