John Stuart Hall

Resilience: a new integrative approach to health and mental health research

Abstract We know from anecdote and research, science and art, that human resilience is a powerful, seemingly ubiquitous force. What is needed is a better understanding of the properties, variations, and applications of that concept to health and well-being. In this paper we put forth two definitions of resilience: Sustainability of purpose in the face of stress, and recovery from adversity. We review current thinking in the social sciences on the nature of biological, psychological and socio-community processes that may confer resilience. In doing so, we encourage greater attention to aspects of biopsychosocial resourcefulness as a dimension of influence on health and mental health distinct from measures of risk found in standard models of public health inquiry. Multi-level, longitudinal, and intervention methods are advocated for research and applications of the concept with conceptual guidelines for the examination of laboratory, diary, and community indicator data on manifestations of resilience across the life span.

Community Development and Community Resilience: An Integrative Approach

Throughout history, communities and civilizations have sought to enhance the quality of community life and the well-being of its people. However, more recently there has been greater interest in attending to the details of community development by capitalizing on the improved ability to capture community well-being and successes scientifically. That interest invites greater attention to the development of indicators that can quantify those qualities of life that lead to strong and healthy communities. The selection of meaningful indicators is dependent upon several factors including a process that stimulates meaningful involvement of community stakeholders, but the single most important is the identification of an underlying model to guide the work. Indicators do not have meaning in themselves. For these measures to provide a coherent assessment of the community, an integrative approach to understanding what constitutes a healthy and strong community in a dynamic environment is required. A resilience perspective serves that purpose and provides a framework that is broad, neutral, and conceptually strong enough to structure development of significant sets of indicators. Exemplary community indicator processes across the nation, particularly recent efforts in the Phoenix, Arizona region, provide evidence supporting the value of indicator development for community building.

Reconsidering the Connection between Capacity and Governance

High levels of sub-national policy experimentation and public cynicism about politics and government, combined with significant challenges and opportunities for governance capacity such as regionalism, globalization, and technological change call for a reconsideration of the state of capacity and the capacity of the state. Crucial questions surrounding this re-assessment include: What is the difference between government and governance? Who governs in theory and in reality? How does governance now work? Can governance and capacity keep pace with change? Reconsideration of these and related questions yields the conclusion that governance and capacity are intimately connected and that innovative, simultaneous blending of public management and civic capacities is needed to build trust and govern effectively under new and challenging conditions.