TOWARDS A BIO-ECOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RESILIENCE

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »


ORIENTATION

In resilience literature a distinction can be made between studies which focus on educational resilience, reflected in the focus on academic success in the face of a low SES background as a resilient outcome, and studies which focus on resilience in a broader sense, as reflected in the focus on fulfilment of various developmental tasks in the face of a low SES background as a resilient outcome. In this paragraph these two orientations will be discussed after a description of the risk of a low SES background.

THE RISK OF A LOW SES BACKGROUND

Dutch and international authors (Garmezy et al., 1984; Garmezy, 1991; Van Heek, 1972; Schoon, Parsons & Sacker, 2004; Karsten & Sleegers, 2005) have described the positive relationship between low socio-economic status and disruption to adolescent development in the context of school. Low socio-economic status has been defined by the majority of authors as a measure of a combination of low family income, low levels of parental education, low parental job status and few household possessions (Peng, 1994). For youngsters with a low SES there are fewer means available at home, there are often fewer opportunities present in the neighbourhood where these pupils live. This means that they are exposed to negative influences more frequently than those pupils from a high socio-economic background (Peng, 1994).

RESILIENCE AS ACADEMIC SUCCESS IN THE FACE OF A LOW SES BACKGROUND

As low SES is associated with interference in school performance, adolescent resilience is defined in some international studies as an outcome: high school results in spite of a low SES background. For instance, Martin and Marsh (2006) define resilience as A-level success. Waxman, Huang and Wang (1997) define resilience as A-level success in combination with high levels of motivation. Connell, Spencer and Aber (1994) as well as Gutman, Sameroff and Eccles (2002) define resilience as Alevel success in combination with high attendance rates. In relation to these definitions of resilience, Martin & Marsh (2006, p. 267) have defined academically resilient students as: “…those who sustain high levels of achievement motivation and performance despite the presence of stressful events and conditions that place them at risk of doing poorly in school and ultimately dropping out of school” Crosnoe and Elder (2004) use a different description of resilience. They propose that youngsters growing up with high degrees of risk, such as family problems, would probably not be as successful at school as those youngsters growing up in a family which functions better. However, these pupils do display resilience when they perform better than expectations based on the risks present. Academically resilient students could then be defined as those who perform better than expectations based on the risk present. Crosnoe and Elder’s nuance is in agreement with resilience described by Masten (1994, p.7-8) as “Basic success in spite of being a member of a group with high-risk status”.
In studies, such as those by Smokowski, Reynolds en Bezruczko (1999) and Gordon Rouse (2001) adolescents are identified as resilient when they are able to keep up with the class level despite having a low SES background in comparison with those who are unable to keep up and who drop out.

• 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY                                                                                                                     
• 1.1 ORIENTATION

  1.2 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

• 1.3 AIM OF THE STUDY
  1.4 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS
  1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
• 1.6 STUDY DESIGN
  1.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
• 2 TOWARDS A BIO-ECOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RESILIENCE                                                                             
• 2.1 INTRODUCTION
• 2.2 SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT
• 2.3 DIFFERENT RESEARCH APPROACHES INTO RESILIENCE
• 2.4 A BIO-ECOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF RESILIENCE
• 3 METHODOLOGY                                                                                                                                                         
• 3.1 INTRODUCTION
• 3.2 THEORETICAL APPROACHES AND ASSUMPTIONS
• 3.3 RESEARCHING A SUBJECTIVE REALITY
• 3.4 METHODS BY WHICH INTER-SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE IS OBTAINED IN THE PRESENT STUDY
• 3.5 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC: PART A OF THE STUD
• 3.6 INDUCTIVE LOGIC: PART B OF THE STUDY
• 3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
• 3.8 LOOKING AHEAD
• 4 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC: RESEARCH PART A                                                                                                             
• 4.1 PROCEDURE
• 4.2 RESULTS AND FINDINGS: QUALITY OF THE VVL
• 4.3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS: THE VVL SCORES
• 4.4 CONCLUSION: IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICIPANTS FOR PART B
• 5 INDUCTIVE LOGIC: RESEARCH PART B                                                                                                                 
• 5.1 INTRODUCTION
• 5.2 CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEWS
• 5.3 THE PARTICIPANTS
• 5.4 PROCEDURE
• 5.5 RESULTS
• 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS                                                             
• 6.1 INTRODUCTION
• 6.2 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC: PART A OF THE RESEARCH
• 6.3 INDUCTIVE LOGIC: PART B OF THE RESEARCH
• 6.4 INTERSUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE THROUGH INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE  LOGIC
• 6.5 REMARKS ON THE RESEARCH DESIGN
• 6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP RESEARCH
• 6.7 SUMMARY