Content area
Full Text
The construct, family resilience, has been defined and applied very differently by those who are primarily clinical practitioners and those who are primarily researchers in the family field. In this-- article, the family resilience perspective is integrated with conceptual definitions from family stress theory using the Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response (FAAR) Model in an effort to clarify distinctions between family resiliency as capacity and family resilience as a process. The family resilience process is discussed in terms of (a) the meaning of significant risk exposure (vs. the normal challenges of family life) and (b) the importance of making conceptual and operational distinctions between family system outcomes and family protective processes. Recommendations for future family resilience research are discussed.
Key Words: family adaptation, family protective processes, family resilience, family risk processes, family stress.
The perspective that families, like individuals, can be considered resilient as they deal with the challenges in their lives has received increased attention from family scholars in the past decade. The popularity of this concept reflects the general trends in (a) family science, with more emphasis on family strengths (Stinnett & DeFrain, 1985) and resources (Karpel, 1986), rather than family deficits and pathology; and (b) psychology, with a greater emphasis on positive mental health and good functioning (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). However, with the proliferation of research on resilience and applications in practice, confusion has resulted in defining resilience and in deciding who is resilient, particularly when a family is the unit of analysis.
There are multiple sources contributing to this confusion but three issues stand out. First, practitioners and researchers have used the concept of resilience differently. Generally, practitioners use the term to characterize an approach that focuses on family strengths versus deficits; most researchers, on the other hand, have been more interested in outcomes to explain unexpected competent functioning among families (and individuals) who have been exposed to significant risk(s). A second source of confusion follows from the first and relates to the lack of differentiation between (a) resilience as an outcome, (b) the characteristics or protective factors that contribute to families being resilient, (c) the nature and extent of risk exposure, and (d) the process of resilience. The third source of confusion is one that often plagues...