Zeno Franco

Heroism: A Conceptual Analysis and Differentiation Between Heroic Action and Altruism

Heroism represents the ideal of citizens transforming civic virtue into the highest form of civic action, accepting either physical peril or social sacrifice. While implicit theories of heroism abound, surprisingly little theoretical or empirical work has been done to better understand the phenomenon. Toward this goal, we summarize our efforts to systematically develop a taxonomy of heroic subtypes as a starting point for theory building. Next we explore three apparent paradoxes that surround heroism—the dueling impulses to elevate and negate heroic actors; the contrast between the public ascription of heroic status versus the interior decision to act heroically; and apparent similarities between altruism, bystander intervention and heroism that mask important differences between these phenomena. We assert that these seeming contradictions point to an unrecognized relationship between insufficient justification and the ascription of heroic status, providing more explanatory power than risk-type alone. The results of an empirical study are briefly presented to provide preliminary support to these arguments. Finally, several areas for future research and theoretical activity are briefly considered. These include the possibility that extension neglect may play a central role in publics view of nonprototypical heroes; a critique of the positive psychology view that heroism is always a virtuous, prosocial activity; problems associated with retrospective study of heroes; the suggestion that injury or death (particularly in social sacrifice heroes) serves to resolve dissonance in favor of the heroic actor; and a consideration of how to foster heroic imagination.

Are Qualitative Methods Always Best for Humanistic Psychology Research? A Conversation on the Epistemological Divide Between Humanistic and Positive Psychology

The role of qualitative methods within humanistic psychology research is explored though a Web-based dialogue among the authors expressing varying, and often quite diverging, views on assorted concerns about research methodologies and their underlying epistemologies. Specifically explored is whether qualitative methods are inherently better for capturing an understanding of human experience congruent with a human science approach to research or, alternatively, whether both qualitative and quantitative approaches simply offer different, and often complementary, advantages and disadvantages. The divisiveness between humanistic and positive psychology is also explored in relationship to the former fields frequent preference for qualitative methods within a human science paradigm, in contrast to the latter fields frequent preference for quantitative methods within a positivistic science paradigm.

Towards a unified taxonomy of health indicators: Academic health centers and communities working together to improve population health

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program represents a significant public investment. To realize its major goal of improving the public’s health and reducing health disparities, the CTSA Consortium’s Community Engagement Key Function Committee has undertaken the challenge of developing a taxonomy of community health indicators. The objective is to initiate a unified approach for monitoring progress in improving population health outcomes. Such outcomes include, importantly, the interests and priorities of community stakeholders, plus the multiple, overlapping interests of universities and of the public health and health care professions involved in the development and use of local health care indicators. The emerging taxonomy of community health indicators that the authors propose supports alignment of CTSA activities and facilitates comparative effectiveness research across CTSAs, thereby improving the health of communities and reducing health disparities. The proposed taxonomy starts at the broadest level, determinants of health; subsequently moves to more finite categories of community health indicators; and, finally, addresses specific quantifiable measures. To illustrate the taxonomy’s application, the authors have synthesized 21 health indicator projects from the literature and categorized them into international, national, or local/special jurisdictions. They furthered categorized the projects within the taxonomy by ranking indicators with the greatest representation among projects and by ranking the frequency of specific measures. They intend for the taxonomy to provide common metrics for measuring changes to population health and, thus, extend the utility of the CTSA Community Engagement Logic Model. The input of community partners will ultimately improve population health.

Causality, covariates and consensus in ISCRAM research: towards a more robust study design in a transdisciplinary community

Research in disaster management encompasses a variety of academic disciplines. Yet, despite calls to expand the range of methodologies used and elaborate a nascent theory of disaster management, progress towards a transdisciplinary framework is slow. Some reasons for this are explored by focusing on the research efforts of the international community for Information Systems in Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM). Similar to the primary disciplines it draws from, ISCRAM research is typified by case study evaluations. As a result of poorly articulated case study methodologies and the lack of alternative methods, the confidence in causal and generalisability claims remains questionable. Performance evaluation techniques may close these gaps, but several limiting factors must first be addressed – in particular, parameterising and controlling for context variables must receive more attention. The need for well-explicated covariates, such as a disaster severity index that describes the relative impact between incident types, is explored in some detail. The relationship connecting the context and performance assessment variables is briefly considered. Finally, we suggest that the quality of research and theory building is contingent on a deeper, transdisciplinary dialogue about the nature of scientific evidence within ISCRAM – a discussion that may also gradually inform a general theory of disaster management.

The EnRiCH Community Resilience Framework for High-Risk Populations

Introduction: Resilience has been described in many ways and is inherently complex. In essence, it refers to the capacity to face and do well when adversity is encountered. There is a need for empirical research on community level initiatives designed to enhance resilience for high-risk groups as part of an upstream approach to disaster management. In this study, we address this issue, presenting the EnRiCH Community Resilience Framework for High-Risk Populations. Methods: The framework presented in this paper is empirically-based, using qualitative data from focus groups conducted as part of an asset-mapping intervention in five communities in Canada, and builds on extant literature in the fields of disaster and emergency management, health promotion, and community development. Results: Adaptive capacity is placed at the centre of the framework as a focal point, surrounded by four strategic areas for intervention (awareness/communication, asset/resource management, upstream-oriented leadership, and connectedness/engagement). Three drivers of adaptive capacity (empowerment, innovation, and collaboration) cross-cut the strategic areas and represent levers for action which can influence systems, people and institutions through expansion of asset literacy. Each component of the framework is embedded within the complexity and culture of a community. Discussion: We present recommendations for how this framework can be used to guide the design of future resilience-oriented initiatives with particular emphasis on inclusive engagement across a range of functional capabilities.

A Social Network Analysis of 140 Community‐Academic Partnerships for Health: Examining the Healthier Wisconsin Partnership Program

Social Network Analysis (SNA) provides an important, underutilized approach to evaluating Community Academic Partnerships for Health (CAPHs). This study examines administrative data from 140 CAPHs funded by the Healthier Wisconsin Partnership Program (HWPP).

Community Veterans' Decision to Use VA Services: A Multimethod Veteran Health Partnership Study

Background: Ensuring veterans’ access to healthcare is a national priority. Prior studies of veterans’ use of Veterans Health Administration (VA) healthcare have had limited success in evaluating barriers to access for certain vulnerable veteran subpopulations.Objectives: Our coalition of researchers and veteran community members sought to understand factors affecting use of VA, particularly for those less likely to participate in traditional survey studies.Methods: We recruited 858 veterans to complete a collaboratively designed survey at community events or via social media. We compared our results regarding VA use with the 2010 National Survey of Veterans (NSV) using chi-square tests, multiple logistic regression to identify predictors of VA use, and content analysis for open-ended descriptions of barriers to VA use.Results: Veterans in our study were more likely than NSV respondents to report using VA healthcare ever (76% vs. 28%; p < 0.0001). Within this group, more veterans in our sample were current VA users (83% vs. 68%; p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, VA use was predicted by self-reported physical problems (comparing “a lot” vs. “none” for each variable, adjusted odds ratio [OR], 8.35), thinking problems (OR, 1.14), need for smoking cessation (OR, 1.54), need for pain management (OR, 1.65), and need for other mental health services (OR, 3.04). We identified 15 themes summarizing veterans’ perceived barriers to VA use.Conclusion: Persistent actual and perceived barriers prevent some veterans from using VA services. The VA can better understand and address these issues through community–academic partnerships with veterans’ organizations.

Heroism and Eudaimonia: Sublime Actualization Through the Embodiment of Virtue

The philosophical roots of eudaimonia lie in “Aristotle’s view of the highest human good involving virtue and the realization of one’s potential … It begins with Aristotle’s emphasizing choice and suggesting that virtue, which is central to eudaimonia, involves making the right choices” (Deci and Ryan, J Happiness Stud 9(1):1–11, 2008, pp. 4, 7). Although the Aristotelian meaning of ‘virtue’ is somewhat contested (Keyes & Annas, 2009), its association with heroic action as an ideal state is immediate. Eudaimonic happiness “actively expresses excellency of character or virtue” (Haybron, 2000, p. 3). Heroism and heroes have been considered to be the pinnacle of human excellence and virtue in history. In his reading of Merleau-Ponty’s 1948 address of heroism, Smyth (2010, p. 178) notes that “the hero is someone who ‘lives to the limit … his relation to men and the world’”. Allison and Goethals (2014, p. 167) concur that, “The human tendency to bestow a timeless quality to heroic leadership is the culmination of a pervasive narrative about human greatness [emphasis added] that people have been driven to construct since the advent of language”. This peak state, and the idea of transcendence that is associated with it, go to the basis of the word ‘eudaimonia’, the ‘daemon’, i.e., being taken over by the ‘good spirit’ (Boskovic and Sendula Jengic, 2008; Froh et al, 2009).

Heroism Research: A Review of Theories, Methods, Challenges, and Trends:

Heroism as an expression of self-actualization and a pinnacle social state is of fundamental interest to humanistic psychology and the field more broadly. This review places the growing discussion on heroic action in a humanistic perspective, as heroism aligns with ethical self-actualization in its highest form, personal meaning making, and social good, and can also involve profound existential costs. This review is organized in four major sections: First, the historical and philosophical underpinnings of heroism are examined, moving from ancient Greco-Roman perspectives, to more modern interpretations of Continental philosophy, and to Freud and Le Bon. Second, the article summarizes in detail a renaissance of interest in the psychology of heroism that began in the early 2000s, moving from a modern re-theorizing of heroism toward empirical exploration. This renewal of interest is described as six overlapping phases: theory building and exploration of operational definitions of heroism, taxonometric approaches to heroic figures, implicit theories of heroism, social ascription of heroic status, social influence of heroes, and internal motivations for heroic action. Third, key methodological challenges in studying heroism are discussed. Finally, the renewed interest in heroism is considered as a social movement involving not just researchers but also the broader public.

Heroism and wellbeing in the 21st century: Applied and emerging perspectives

There has been significant intellectual fervor over the past two decades on wellbeing and optimal human behaviors. These research trends have been especially reflected in the heightened activity surrounding the study of heroism and heroic leadership over the last decade, spearheaded by world-renowned US psychologist Emeritus Professor Philip Zimbardo. A growing number of leading and emerging researchers across a number of disciplines are discovering the epistemological and empirical value of heroism, giving rise to the nascent field of “heroism science” (Allison, Goethals, and Kramer 2017).