ACADEMIC RESILIENCE OF CHILDREN WHO 

OVERCOME ADVERSITY 

by 

DANE CHANNON 

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree 

Doctor of Psychology 

(with specialisation in Child Psychology)  

in the 

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY 

at the 

UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE  

BLOEMFONTEIN 

Promoter: PROF. A. E. LOUW  

Co-promoters: Prof. K. G. Esterhuyse and Prof. D. A. Louw 

                                                                        November 2022 

 

 



 ii 

 

DECLARATION 

I, Dane Paul Channon, 2015275684, hereby declare that the dissertation titled 

Academic resilience of children who overcome adversity is my own work and has not 

previously been submitted for assessment or completion of any postgraduate 

qualification to another university or another qualification.  

 

Dane Channon                                                              30 November 2022 

Name of student                                 Date 

 

  



 iii 

 

DECLARATION BY SUPERVISOR 

I, Anet Elizabeth Louw, hereby declare that the dissertation Academic resilience of 

children who overcome adversity is the work of Dane Paul Channon towards the 

degree Doctor of Psychology (with specialisation in Child Psychology) and that it has 

not previously been submitted for assessment or completion of any postgraduate 

qualification to another university or another qualification.  

 

Prof. A. E. Louw                                                                               November 2022 

 

 

  



 iv 

 

PROOF OF LANGUAGE EDITING 

I, Dane Channon, confirm that as a proficient first-language English speaker, I 

have conducted an English proofreading and grammar edit on the dissertation 

Academic resilience of children who overcome adversity. Furthermore, Grammarly 

was used as a control mechanism, while two promoters who are textbook writers 

also assisted in the editing process. A professional librarian (Ms H. Van Tonder) also 

conducted an APA (7th ed.) edit on the dissertation.  

 

 

  



 v 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I should like to thank the following people for supporting me through this 

undertaking:  

 To my supervisor, Professor Anet Louw. It takes much patience (and resilience) 

to supervise a PhD candidate with ADHD. Your guidance, personally and 

professionally, has been invaluable. Regarding relational resilience enablers, 

you take the cake – thank you! 

 My best friend and biggest fan – my wife, Nicole, for your unfailing love, support 

and understanding. Thank you for helping me pursue my dreams and 

journeying with me.  

 My son, Jack, for bringing me the joyful experience of being a dad. Your smiles 

and laughter get me through the darkest of days.  

 To my in-laws, Eugene, Susan, Kristen, and Jules, for keeping Nicole and Jack 

company when I was engaged in writing and for your unwavering support and 

love. 

 To Martine and Leon for adopting me as a son. 

 To Professor ("Oom") Dap Louw, for your captivatingly comedic stories and 

encouragement. 

 To Professor Karel Esterhuyse for your valuable insights. 

 To Hesma Van Tonder for assisting me with the APA format editing. 

 The participants – thank you for sharing your experiences with me. I wish you 

continued success in the future as you continue to foster resilience processes. 

 To my mother, "Pippi", I carry your heart; I carry it in my heart. I will forever be 

indebted to the sacrifices you made for me. I can only hope you see how much 

it meant and what we achieved.  



 vi 

 

ABSTRACT 

 
Children in South Africa walk a fragile path to adulthood. This sentiment by 

UNICEF in 2012 remains relevant for children in the country a decade later. Youth 

face a myriad of threats to development. Despite many children succumbing to such 

risks, some children bounce back from adversities to foster resilient outcomes.  

This qualitative, multiple case study research aimed to explore how children 

navigate, negotiate, and engage with their social ecologies to overcome adversity 

and demonstrate academic resilience. Four adolescent participants were 

purposefully selected from East London schools in the Eastern Cape. These learners 

were identified by their school ecologies as having achieved positive academic 

outcomes despite experiences of significant adversity. The social ecology of 

resilience framework (SERT) was used to conceptualise the study. Multiple data 

collection sources were used, contributing to the descriptive and explanatory 

analyses of the data. Five phases of analytical data analysis aligned with case study 

research were employed to uncover contextually relevant themes of resilience 

building. The case studies yielded rich and detailed information on the biological 

vulnerabilities, challenging social and physical environments, specific negative life 

events and compound socio-demographic risks experienced by these children, the 

personal, relational, structural, and spiritual/cultural resilience enablers in their 

ecologies, and the processes by which these children identified and used these 

enablers across their social ecologies. 

This study contributed to theory building for SERT as a framework for 

understanding how children transact resources and opportunities within their social 



 vii 

ecologies in culturally and contextually meaningful ways. The strengths, implications 

and limitations of the study are indicated, and recommendations are offered.  

 
Key words: academic resilience; adolescents; adversity; qualitative multiple case 

study social ecology of resilience framework (SERT). 

 

  



 viii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

DECLARATION ..................................................................................................... ii 

DECLARATION BY SUPERVISOR...................................................................... iii 

PROOF OF LANGUAGE EDITING ...................................................................... iv 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... v 

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... vi 

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ xv 

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ xvii 

CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................... 1 

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ........................................................................ 1 

1.1 Motivation for the Study: A personal reflection ............................................. 1 

1.2 The Background, Rationale, and Aim of the Study ....................................... 2 

1.3 Contribution to Knowledge ........................................................................... 7 

1.4 Exposition of the Chapters ........................................................................... 7 

1.5 Summary ...................................................................................................... 8 

CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................... 10 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................................... 10 

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 10 

2.2 Origins of Resilience ................................................................................... 10 

2.3 The Four Waves of Resilience and the Emergence of the 5th Wave .......... 18 

2.4 The Construct of Resilience ....................................................................... 25 



 ix 

2.4.1 Ambiguities in Definition and Terminology ........................................... 31 

2.4.2 The Multidimensional Nature of Resilience .......................................... 41 

2.4.3 Instability in the Phenomenon of Research .......................................... 43 

2.4.4 Theoretical Concerns ........................................................................... 44 

2.5 South African Resilience Studies ................................................................ 47 

2.5.1 Vulnerabilities and Risks in South African Resilience Studies ............. 57 

2.5.2 Resilience Enablers in South African Resilience Studies ..................... 76 

2.6. Academic Resilience ................................................................................. 84 

2.7 Social Ecology Theory of Resilience .......................................................... 88 

2.8 Conclusion and Summary .......................................................................... 94 

CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................... 96 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 96 

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 96 

3.2 Purpose and Aim of the Study .................................................................... 96 

3.3 Research Design ........................................................................................ 97 

3.3.1 Qualitative Research Design................................................................ 98 

3.3.2 Case Study Research Design ............................................................ 105 

3.4 Theoretical Orientation ............................................................................. 125 

3.5 Research Process .................................................................................... 130 

3.5.1 Foundation Phase .............................................................................. 130 

3.5.2 Prefield Phase .................................................................................... 132 



 x 

3.5.3 Field Phase ........................................................................................ 133 

3.5.4 Analysis Phase .................................................................................. 134 

3.5.5 Reporting Phase ................................................................................ 135 

3.6 Research Procedure ................................................................................. 136 

3.6.1 Case Selection ................................................................................... 137 

3.6.2 Recruitment Procedure ...................................................................... 140 

3.7 Data Collection Procedure ........................................................................ 142 

3.7.1 Observations ...................................................................................... 144 

3.7.2 Semi-structured Interviews................................................................. 145 

3.7.3 Artefacts and Collateral Information ................................................... 148 

3.8 Data Analysis............................................................................................ 150 

3.8.1 Summarising the Data ....................................................................... 154 

3.8.2 Reviewing the Observational Data ..................................................... 154 

3.8.3 Categorising the Data ........................................................................ 155 

3.8.4 Examining Plausible Rival Explanations ............................................ 155 

3.8.5 Explaining the Data ............................................................................ 156 

3.8.6 Cross-case Synthesis ........................................................................ 157 

3.9 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................. 158 

3.9.1 Confronting Adversity (re-living threats) ............................................. 159 

3.10 Trustworthiness ...................................................................................... 160 

3.11 Summary ................................................................................................ 162 



 xi 

CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................... 163 

FINDINGS: DESCRIPTIVE DATA ..................................................................... 163 

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 163 

4.2 Phases of Data Analysis ........................................................................... 164 

4.3 Case 1: "Aviwe's Story" ............................................................................ 167 

4.3.1 Observations of Aviwe ....................................................................... 173 

4.4 Case 2: "Bianca's Story" ........................................................................... 176 

4.4.1 Observations of Bianca ...................................................................... 182 

4.5 Case 3: "Claire's Story" ............................................................................ 186 

4.5.1 Observations of Claire ....................................................................... 193 

4.6 Case 4: "Dinga's Story" ............................................................................ 197 

4.6.1 Observations of Dinga ....................................................................... 204 

4.7 Summary .................................................................................................. 208 

CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................... 210 

FINDINGS: EXPLANATORY DATA .................................................................. 210 

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 210 

5.2 Examining Plausible Rival Explanations ................................................... 211 

5.2.1 Rival Explanation of Adversity ............................................................ 212 

5.2.2 Rival Explanation of Academic Resilience ......................................... 213 

5.2.3 Rival Explanation for Social Ecology of Resilience ............................ 213 

5.3 Explanation Building ................................................................................. 214 



 xii 

5.3.1 Aviwe's Social-ecological Resilience-building Process ...................... 216 

5.3.2 Bianca's Social-ecological Resilience-building Process ..................... 219 

5.3.3 Claire's Social-ecological Resilience-building Process ...................... 222 

5.3.4 Dinga's Social-ecological Resilience-building Process ...................... 225 

5.4 Cross-case Synthesis ............................................................................... 228 

5.4.1 Personal Resilience-enabling Processes ........................................... 229 

5.4.2 Relational Resilience-enabling Processes ......................................... 236 

5.4.3 Structural Resilience-enabling Processes .......................................... 240 

5.4.4 Spiritual/cultural Resilience-enabling Processes ................................ 245 

5.5 Summary .................................................................................................. 251 

CHAPTER 6 ....................................................................................................... 253 

KEY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................. 253 

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 253 

6.2 Key Findings and Discussion ................................................................... 253 

6.2.1 Adversities Experienced by the Research Participants ...................... 255 

6.2.2 Resilience Enablers Experienced by the Research Participants ........ 257 

6.2.3 Research Participants’ Navigation, Negotiation and Engagement with 

their Social Ecologies ...................................................................................... 260 

6.3 Contributions and Strengths of the Study ................................................. 266 

6.3.1 Addressing Current Trends in Resilience Research .......................... 266 

6.3.2 Addressing the Need for Qualitative Case Study Methodology.......... 268 



 xiii 

6.3.3 Addressing the Philosophical Stance of Qualitative Case Study Research

 ........................................................................................................................ 269 

6.3.4 The Social-ecological Spiritual/Cultural Processes of Resilience-building

 ........................................................................................................................ 270 

6.3.5 Contribution to Theory Building .......................................................... 273 

6.4 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................ 273 

6.5 Implications and Recommendations ......................................................... 276 

6.6 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................ 279 

6.7 Personal Reflection .................................................................................. 280 

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 283 

APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 332 

Appendix A: University of the Free State Ethics Committee Approval ............ 332 

Appendix B: Department of Education Permission to Conduct Study............. 333 

Appendix C: Parent/caregiver Information and Consent Form ....................... 334 

Appendix D: Child/learner Information and Consent Form ............................. 337 

Appendix E: Principal Consent ....................................................................... 341 

Appendix F: Teacher Information and Consent Form ..................................... 344 

Appendix G: Interview Schedule .................................................................... 348 

Appendix H: Semi-structured Interview Questions – Parent/caregiver ........... 349 

Appendix I: Child/learner Semi-structured Interview Protocol ......................... 351 

Appendix J: Teacher Semi-structured Interview Protocol ............................... 352 



 xiv 

Appendix K: Inclusion Criteria Brief ................................................................ 353 

Appendix L: Transcription Services Confidentiality Agreement ...................... 355 

Appendix M: Research Supervisor letter ........................................................ 356 

Appendix N: TurnItIn Report ........................................................................... 357 

 
 
  



 xv 

LIST OF TABLES 

 
Table 2.1: Core Questions in Resilience Research 17 

Table 2.2: Comparison summary of South African Resilience Study 

Designs 1990 - 2008 & 2009 – 2017 

53 

Table 2.3: Risks and Vulnerabilities of South African Children 57 

Table 2.4: Environmental Exposures to Children’s Health 58 

Table 2.5: Social-ecological Layers for Resilience-enabling 77 

Table 3.1: Philosophical Orientations in Case Study Research 106 

Table 3.2: Elements of Case Study Research 117 

Table 3.3: Tactics for Establishing Validity and Reliability in Case 

Studies 

123 

Table 3.4: Inclusion Criteria for Participant Selection 138 

Table 3.5: Case Demographics 141 

Table 3.6: Data Sources 142 

Table 3.7: Interview Process 146 

Table 3.8: Interview Timeline 147 

Table 3.9: Theoretical Phenomena and Propositions 150 

Table 4.1: Aviwe’s Risk Factors 173 

Table 4.2: Aviwe’s Resilience Enablers 174 

Table 4.3: Bianca’s Risk Factors 183 

Table 4.4: Bianca’s Resilience Enablers 184 

Table 4.5: Claire’s Risk Factors 194 

Table 4.6: Claire’s Resilience Enablers 195 

Table 4.7: Dinga’s Risk Factors 206 

Table 4.8: Dinga’s Resilience Enablers 207 

Table 5.1: Rival Explanations 211 



 xvi 

Table 5.2: Cross-case Themes 248 

Table 6.1: Adversities experiences by the Research Participants 254 

Table 6.2: Resilience Enablers Experienced by the Research 

Participants 

257 

Table 6.3: How Children Transact Resilience Enabling through 

Social Ecologies 

259 

 
  



 xvii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.1: Nested Model of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems 

Theory 

26 

Figure 2.2: Kumpfer’s Ecological Context Model 28 

Figure 2.3: Minimal-impact Resilience 35 

Figure 2.4: Emergent Resilience 36 

Figure 2.5: Resilience as a Process 39 

Figure 2.6: Person-in-environment Framework 92 

Figure 3.1: Case Study Phases 129 

Figure 3.2: Stages of Research Procedure 136 

Figure 3.3: The Recruitment Procedure 140 

Figure 3.4: Data Collection Procedure 143 

Figure 3.5 Data Analysis Procedure 152 

Figure 4.1: Theoretical Proposition for the Academic Resilience 

Process 

163 

Figure 4.2: Data Analysis Phases 165 

Figure 4.3: Case Order 166 

Figure 4.4: Photograph of Resilience: Aviwe 170 

Figure 4.5: Clay Model of Resilience: Aviwe 171 

Figure 4.6: Photograph of Resilience: Bianca 179 

Figure 4.7: Clay Model of Resilience: Bianca 180 

Figure 4.8: Photograph of Resilience: Claire 190 

Figure 4.9: Drawing of resilience: Claire 191 

Figure 4.10: Photograph of Resilience: Dinga 201 

Figure 4.11: Drawing of Resilience: Dinga 202 

Figure 5.1: Model of SERT for Academic Resilience 215 

 



1 
 

Contribution to 

KnowledgeThe Background, 

Rationale, and Aim 

of the Study

Motivation for the 

Study: A personal 

reflection

Exposition of the 

Chapters

Summary

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 

Although the world is full of suffering, it is also full of the overcoming of it. 

- Helen Keller 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1 Motivation for the Study: A personal reflection 

Resilience has been an interest of mine for many years. I have worked in school-

based support teams (SBSTs) for the better part of eight years. During this time, I 

have witnessed the resilient processes of those children whose lives seemed so 

overwhelmed by adversity that it appeared mystical that these children found a way 

to achieve academically against such odds. Ann Masten's (2001, p. 7) description of 

resilience as "ordinary magic" is perhaps the most appropriate conceptualisation of 

this resilience phenomenon. This term is, of course, an oxymoron. How can the 

magic be ordinary? This conundrum is a guiding question for my motivation to 

undertake this research. 

Like many people, I have had my share of adversity. I was raised in a house of 

chaos associated with the continuous conflict between an abusive, alcoholic father 

and a mother struggling with a mood disorder. I had felt the burns of cigarettes 

extinguished on my arms when my behaviour as a six-year-old, undiagnosed child 



2 
 

with attention deficit hyperactive disorder was impartial to my father. I have 

experienced the symphony of shattered dinner plates against a kitchen wall and the 

splintered glass of my father punching through a window after being locked out of the 

house after one of his binges. I have missed school to hide bruises, dusted the 

remains of drugs from a coffee table and prevented my mother's suicide. I have lived 

in a garage, worked two jobs to get myself through school and university, and nursed 

my mother through cancer – a battle she ultimately lost. Nevertheless, despite this, I, 

too, somehow managed to overcome these challenges to write this doctoral thesis.  

I have never presumed myself to be superhuman. I had hardly considered or 

reflected on the processes that fostered such resilience. Thus, this research is not 

only a contribution to the South African body of research in resilience but also a 

journey of self-discovery. I want to understand better how some children come to 

conquer adversity and achieve academic success because I know first-hand how 

academic success opens doors to opportunities.  

In this chapter, I will provide a brief background, rationale, and aim of the study, 

as well as the contribution of this study to the body of knowledge on children's 

resilience. I also include an exposition of the various chapters.  

1.2 The Background, Rationale, and Aim of the Study 

It is in the interest of every society for children to reach their fullest potential to 

become worthy social, emotional, and economic contributors to their communities as 

adults. Unfortunately, many children worldwide are exposed to various factors that 

may hamper their developmental outcomes. It has been estimated that 50% of the 

world's children are currently suffering significant deprivation that effectively denies 

them an optimal childhood. These deprivations can occur in all human psychological 

and biological dimensions (Amnesty International, 2021; United Nations Programme 



3 
 

on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), 2020). South Africa is no exception to this phenomenon 

(Stats SA, 2020, 2021). As early as 1986, Percy Qoboza (1986), a South African 

journalist, stated that "If it is true that a people's wealth is in its children, then South 

Africa is bitterly, tragically poor. If it is true that a nation's future is in its children, we 

have no future and deserve none" (p. E2). 

Although South Africa has identified the main areas of children's suffering and has 

set goals in this regard, we unfortunately still have a long way to go. The 

circumstances in which our children grow up (crime, violence, various forms of 

abuse, lack of social assistance, and poor education) are still of national and 

international concern (Louw & Louw, 2022). In fact, in 2012, the United Nations 

International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) declared, "To be a child in South 

Africa is to walk a fragile path to adulthood" (p. 5). In their article We are killing our 

children, we are killing our future, Jacobs and Nadat (2021) stated that South Africa 

remains an extraordinarily violent and traumatised society and that violence and 

abuse of children are systemic. It is equally tragic that political and other leaders do 

not realise that if our children's exposure to adversities could be decreased, it would 

benefit society as a whole. In this vein, Nelson Mandela's quote from one of his 

addresses (1995) comes to mind "There can be no keener revelation of a society's 

soul than the way in which it treats its children."  

The above exposition refers to the various risk factors that children are exposed to 

that could compromise their development and well-being and contribute to their 

vulnerability to social, physical, and mental health issues. These risk factors include 

challenging social and physical environments (e.g., community violence, 

gangsterism, ineffective schools and education, poor parenting practices), specific 

negative life events (e.g., the death of a parent, parental divorce, abuse, neglect, 



4 
 

abandonment, bullying, substance abuse, endemics, epidemics, and pandemics), 

compound socio-demographic risks (e.g., poverty, prejudice), as well as biological 

vulnerabilities (e.g., genetic predispositions, various disabilities and illnesses) (Van 

Rensburg et al., 2015).  

Although many youths succumb to these risks, many others develop normatively 

or even flourish in the face of adversity. Researchers in this field investigate how 

individuals navigate these adversities and establish themselves favourably in their 

various environments. This capacity to do well despite adverse conditions is broadly 

termed 'resilience', while the processes and resources that enable resilient outcomes 

are referred to as 'enablers of resilience' (Haffejee, 2018; Van Breda & Theron, 

2018). Resilience research has been plagued by variable definitions and 

operationalisations over the years (Van Rensburg et al., 2015). What has emerged, 

though, is that resilience is a complex field that has evolved over the decades. For 

example, resilience studies changed from initial person-focused models to 

acknowledging that the developing individual is both complex and dynamic – 

changes occur continuously due to the numerous interactions of people and their 

environments, as well as ongoing interactions within the individual (Masten & 

Barnes, 2018). Resilience is currently seen as a culturally aligned transaction and is 

regarded as a reciprocal process between individuals and their social ecologies, as 

explicated in Ungar's (2012) social ecology resilience theory.  

In their review of South African child and youth quantitative resilience studies 

during the period 1996-2012, Van Rensburg et al. (2015) found that South African 

research on resilience reflected the use of outdated and undeclared theoretical 

frameworks informing conceptualisation and operationalisation; most of the studies 

explained resilience as a too simplistic process; invalid Western scales were used, 



5 
 

and a lack of direct measures of risks was evident. In addition, the studies did not 

replicate the international progress in conceptualising resilience as a transactional 

process. In a subsequent review of resilience studies between 2009 and 2017, which 

included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method designs, Van Breda and Theron 

(2018) identified four categories of social ecological enablers: personal, relational, 

structural, and spiritual/cultural. Most of the resilience enablers identified in these 

studies were personal and relational. Of the 61 studies reviewed, only four explicitly 

associated resilience with children and young people's ability to interact with or utilise 

resources in their social environments. Therefore, this aspect is still relatively 

unchartered and needs to be addressed, especially since various developmental 

psychologists have acknowledged the reciprocal process between children and their 

environments. 

From the perusal of the extant literature, it has become clear that the educational 

context is one of the most salient and vital ecologies in children's lives (Masten, 

2014). However, it seems that academic resilience is one domain of resilience that 

has been significantly neglected. This paucity in the field is critical since education 

remains crucial for many countries, such as South Africa, where school failure rates 

reinforce societal inequalities (Hart et al., 2016). According to Taylor and Yu (2009), 

South Africa presents a fascinating context for studying academic resilience 

because, compared to other countries, it exhibits one of the strongest correlations 

between learners' socio-economic status and academic performance.  

Although it cannot be denied that poverty has a far-reaching effect on children's 

academic resilience, it is essential to acknowledge that other risk factors (e.g., 

various adverse life events) may also hamper their ability to thrive at school. It is, 

therefore, equally important to investigate how children negotiate these risk factors to 



6 
 

achieve positive academic outcomes. This exploration will enable researchers and 

policymakers to understand better the processes and transactions involved in 

fostering academic resilience. Conversely, if children are to thrive, society's 

prerogative is to ensure that they are provided with adequate resources in their 

social ecologies, which they can navigate and negotiate to help them through their 

scholastic careers.  

A perusal of the literature to date revealed that most studies on academic 

resilience in South Africa focused on structural risk factors (e.g., poverty and low-

quality education) in township schools (Mampane, 2014; Mampane & Bouwer, 2011; 

Wills & Hofmeyr, 2018). Thus, there remains a gap in the literature for academic 

resilience among Model C school environments (former whites-only schools) where 

children's social ecologies are likely to hold more resources for at-risk children. It 

should be acknowledged that many children in South Africa are hampered by various 

adversities that could affect their academic outcomes despite their socio-economic 

backgrounds and the quality of their social ecologies. Therefore, it is essential to 

explore all children's adversities and resilience processes – especially how they 

perceive and transact with their social ecologies to enhance their academic 

performance.  

Therefore, the study aims to investigate how at-risk children from various 

backgrounds transact with their various ecologies to develop academic resilience. 

Due to the in-depth nature of this enquiry and based on the literature, a qualitative 

multiple-case study methodology emerged as the most applicable research design 

(Meriam, 2009; Stake, 2006; Yin, 2018). This study is conceptualised within the 

Social Ecology Resilience Theory (SERT) (Ungar, 2012) and within the overarching 

philosophical epistemology of constructivist realism. 



7 
 

 

 

1.3 Contribution to Knowledge 

This study aims to contribute to the resilience research literature in the local South 

African context. As Van Rensburg and colleagues (2015) discussed, much of this 

South African research leaves gaps that potentially undermine the credibility and 

relevance of resilience studies in the local context. Using an established social 

ecology theoretical framework (SERT), this study grounds itself in a contextually 

relevant and contemporary way that speaks to the unique processes of academically 

resilient South African children.  

Additionally, a multiple-case study design is rarely used in psychology resilience 

studies despite the demonstratable value such an approach holds (Sriskandarajay et 

al., 2010; Theron & Theron, 2014). Furthermore, the potential to build onto existing 

social ecology theory is a strength of this study due to the theoretical propositions 

that guide the research (see Yin, 2018). As of yet, there is no case study research 

exploring the resilience-building process of academically resilient children in South 

Africa (EBSCOhost). 

Finally, the study aims to build onto contemporary research for the social 

ecological resilience theory through an analytic strategy that can serve credence for 

the propositions underpinning the study. 

A note to the reader: key terms and concepts will be defined in the thesis. 

1.4 Exposition of the Chapters 

Chapter 1 introduces the study's background, rationale, aim, and contribution. 

Chapter 2 contextualises the study within the field of resilience. Moreover, the 

phenomena of adversity and enablers of resilience are unpacked through the lens of 



8 
 

the social ecology of resilience theory (SERT) in how children foster academic 

resilience despite significant adversity. Subsequently, Chapter 3 outlines the 

multiple-case study research design used for the current research and the 

philosophical orientation of constructive realism underpinning the research methods 

used to answer the research questions. After that, the ethical considerations and 

trustworthiness of the study are highlighted. Chapter 4 describes the data gathered 

from multiple sources according to an analytic descriptive narrative strategy in which 

data is matched to the theoretical propositions of the study. Chapter 5 uses an 

explanation-building analytic strategy to explain the data through the social ecology 

of resilience framework in alignment with the theoretical propositions of the study. 

Moreover, the cross-case synthesis adds additional depth to the analysis for 

theory-building, which became an additional aim as the analysis unfolded. Finally, 

Chapter 6 concludes by unpacking the contextually relevant findings from chapters 4 

and 5 to answer the research questions of how academically resilient children utilise 

resources and supports in their social ecologies to overcome adversity. Emergent 

themes are presented that speak to the study's guiding theoretical principles, and the 

research's strengths and limitations are highlighted. The chapter concludes with the 

researcher's reflexivity.  

1.5 Summary 

In this chapter, the reader is introduced to the academic resilience of children who 

overcome adversity. The motivation for the study is presented, followed by a brief 

overview of the background, rationale and aim to orientate the reader. The research 

design and methodology, as well as the theoretical and epistemology frameworks, 

are briefly mentioned. These topics will be discussed, and the concepts will be 



9 
 

defined in more detail in the subsequent chapters. The next chapter comprises a 

discussion of literature relevant to the study.  

 
  



10 
 

Conclusion and 

Summary

The Construct of 

Resilience

The Four Waves of 

Resilience

Origins of 

Resilience

Introduction
South African 

Resilience Studies

Academic 

Resilience

Social Ecology 

Theory of 

Resilience

CHAPTER 2 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter contextualises this study by unpacking the historical overview of the 

emergence and subsequent study of resilience as a distinct field within psychology. 

The origins of resilience and the critical research contributors will be discussed 

before addressing the very construct of resilience and how it is defined across 

various contexts with a specific focus on psychology. After that, the four waves and 

the emerging fifth wave delineate resilience research development over time, 

followed by an overview of South African resilience studies. Additionally, the specific 

domain of academic resilience will be addressed. Lastly, the Social Ecology Theory 

of resilience will be presented as the conceptual framework of the current study.  

2.2 Origins of Resilience 

Adversities such as wars, various forms of violence, natural and manmade 

disasters, epidemics and pandemics, socio-political inequalities and displacements, 

socio-economic challenges, and various personal setbacks and challenges have 

beleaguered human beings throughout the ages. These events often change the 

course of history and influence the existence of communities and the developmental 



11 
 

trajectories of individuals. Despite hardships experienced, history abounds with 

individuals who triumphed over adversity, obstacles, and difficult odds to attain 

significant achievement.  

Positive outcomes in the face of adversity paved the way for theorists and 

researchers to seek answers to how some people respond adaptively despite 

significant odds whilst others succumb to adverse outcomes due to their 

unfavourable circumstances. Interestingly, early research in this regard has its roots 

in research and literature during and after the Second World War.  

Anna Freud and Dorothy Burlingham's (1943) literature on the adverse effects of 

war on child development began in 1936 when children in Spain were subjected to 

bombardments and continued throughout World War II. Their work detailed the 

abnormal developmental behaviours of children affected by the war and profoundly 

impacted subsequent child development literature, attachment, and adoption 

science.  

The consequences of childhood exposure to significant risk and the resulting 

adverse outcomes gained significance and gave rise to efforts to mitigate abnormal 

development in children. The profound impact of separation and loss on children and 

that children reacted with significant trauma when separated from their parents drove 

initiatives to protect the developmental processes of children. The United Nations 

International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) was founded in 1946 to provide 

relief to children in countries devastated by World War II. After 1950 the fund 

directed its efforts toward general programmes for improving children's welfare, 

particularly in less-developed countries in various emergencies.   

Research in the 1940s was primarily preoccupied with the nature of disorder, in 

line with the symptoms-based medical 'deficit' models of illness and psychopathology 



12 
 

of the time (Windle, 2010). However, certain researchers became increasingly aware 

that studying risk was insufficient and that positive processes also needed to be 

considered. For example, children showed obvious shock and stress in threatening 

situations of the War. However, those children who remained in a caregiver's 

presence evinced significantly lesser reactions to the stressors (Freud et al., 1943). 

Thus, researchers became increasingly familiar with the protective role a proximal 

attachment figure plays in a child's life. The research of Norman Garmezy, Emmy 

Werner and Michael Rutter is widely considered to be the most salient contribution to 

the body of early resilience work. All three were affected by World War II (Masten et 

al., 1990).  

Norman Garmezy was a pioneer who made various salient contributions to the 

conceptualisation of resilience and is often noted as the founder of resilience (Rutter, 

2012). Garmezy had served in the infantry as a young soldier and had fought in the 

Battle of the Bulge before moving back to America to become a clinical psychologist 

and influential researcher. His early research was on the process-reactive dichotomy 

in schizophrenia that was prevalent at the time (Garmezy et al., 1961; Garmezy & 

Rodnick, 1959). He was particularly interested in the differences in developmental 

trajectories and outcomes of these two groups and the factors that explained these 

differences. More specifically, he noted that people with reactive schizophrenia 

showed premorbid competence, therefore living quite everyday lives; they showed 

resilient trajectories and often did not need medication to improve. However, people 

living with process schizophrenia were more chronically impaired throughout their 

lives. This difference prompted Garmezy to consider 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' 

prognostic indices in schizophrenia. He delineated five factors associated with 



13 
 

favourable versus unfavourable outcomes: clinical factors, social and personal 

history, abstract thinking skills, constitutional factors, and physiological factors. 

Garmezy's course of focus shifted to child development, and he was the founder 

of Project Competence, one of the landmark longitudinal studies in the field of 

resilience (see Garmezy, 1970, 1971, 1975, 1987; 1981; 1991a, 1991b; Garmezy et 

al., 1984; Garmezy et al., 1974). The research programme focused on the 

manifestations of competence and incompetence in children considered to be at risk 

for psychopathology based on mental illness in a parent (schizophrenia, affective 

disorder, personality disorder) and manifest disorders, disabilities, and behaviour 

problems in children. Gamerzy and his colleagues attempted to understand the 

protective and risk factors in stress-resistant children, thereby setting the course for 

the building blocks of developmental psychopathology. They set out to measure and 

operationalise both adaptive competence and risk criteria and factors that might 

account for variations in children's adaption in the context of such risks. Gamerzy 

and his colleagues (1984) developed a 3-model approach to stress resistance in a 

multivariate regression framework: the compensatory, challenge, and protective 

factor models. The compensatory model is additive, where stressors lower 

competence and personal attributes improve adjustment. For example, children in 

high-risk environments may have compensatory attributes (e.g., problem-solving 

skills; a warm, close relationship with another person); the challenge model posits a 

curvilinear relationship where stressors may enhance adjustment, such as that some 

stress is needed to develop coping skills and to mobilise internal and external 

resources; the protective model postulates an interactive relationship between risk 

and protection factors which reduces the probability of a negative outcome and 

moderates the effect of risk exposure. For example, a child in high poverty may have 



14 
 

a cohesive home which interacts with the poverty to decrease risk. Overall, Garmezy 

and his co-researchers identified individual factors of children (e.g., cognitive skills, 

temperament, responsiveness to others), familial factors (e.g., socio-economic 

factors, parental competence) and support factors (the availability of external support 

systems) as the significant factors that modified competence. Children with greater 

assets appeared to be more competent, socially engaged, and less prone to 

disruptive-aggressive responses than those with low assets.  

Garmezy's contribution to resilience research is that he regarded development as 

a unifying concept focusing on both continuities and discontinuities in developmental 

psychopathology, of which neither could be presumed to predominate. Secondly, he 

helped move resilience beyond theory into practice with a rigorous approach to 

methodological analysis incorporating quantitative and qualitative methods. Garmezy 

later mentored another critical figure in resilience research – Ann Masten, who 

continues to influence resilience literature.  

Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith's landmark longitudinal study (1982, 1992, 2001) 

investigated at-risk Hawaiian youths' risk and protective variables. Werner had been 

one of the children who experienced the effects of bombing and food shortage in 

Europe during World War II. Werner and Smith began their longitudinal study in 1954 

with a cohort of 698 infants born on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. The study aimed to 

detail the children's developmental outcomes (e.g., physical, social, intellectual, and 

behavioural) until adulthood. The youths faced risks of chronic poverty, parental 

alcoholism, low education, and perinatal stress. The net for resilience research was 

expanded to include multiple adverse conditions. Many of the children had displayed 

problematic behaviours by age ten. However, approximately one-third of the at-risk 

cohort appeared to respond positively and evinced successful life outcomes 



15 
 

(Werner, 1989). Werner published a second follow-up study in 1989 to explore the 

long-term effects of the protective factors in the cohort's lives, which contained 545 

participants of the original 698. It was documented that some 75% of the resilient 

youths described being satisfied as adults. Moreover, some children who had initially 

displayed delinquent behaviours in adolescence also became successful adults.  

Werner's studies illuminated two notable findings: first, children who demonstrated 

the highest resilience appeared to have access to (and make use of) more protective 

factors that buffered the risks. Secondly, resilience is multidimensional and can be 

fostered at later stages in life. Werner (1989) advocated for protective factors to be 

fostered at the individual, family, and community levels, similar to Garmezy. 

Moreover, she proposed that intervention supports are needed to address the risk 

versus the protective balance of variables over individuals' lifespan. Werner (1982) 

posited that most children had a 'self-righting' tendency to all but the most 

unrelenting adversity. 

Michael Rutter is perhaps best regarded as the key figure in establishing child 

psychiatry as a medical and biopsychosocial speciality of study and practice 

(Hartman, 2003). Rutter was one of the children from Great Britain that had been 

evacuated and relocated to America during the blitz. Rutter's seminal studies 

compared the developmental outcomes of children at risk from the less privileged 

inner-borough London area with children from the lower-risk environment in the Isle 

of Wight. Rutter (1979) identified six risk variables and deduced that children 

exposed to more risk (four or more of the variables) had a one in five chance of 

developing a psychiatric disorder compared to children (one or no risk variables) 

having a 1% chance of psychiatric disorder. In the early 1970s, Rutter produced 

Maternal Deprivation Reassessed, considered one of the salient writings in childcare 



16 
 

based on Bowlby's (1951) maternal deprivation hypothesis. Rutter (1972), however, 

advocated that the negative consequences experienced by children were not merely 

a result of maternal deprivation. He posited that this was a 'vulnerability factor' as 

other variables existed, such as family discord and the complexity of separation 

distress which also played a role in developmental outcomes (Kolvin, 1999). Rutter 

(1974) proposed that both divested learning and emotional environments 

significantly affected psychopathology development in children in later stages of life. 

This inclusion broadened the knowledge base of what we consider attachment 

theory in psychology today. 

Additionally, Rutter collaborated with Garmezy in 1983 on Stress, Coping, and 

Development in Children considered a work of signal importance to psychology and 

resilience. This text examined stress in children from a developmental and 

neurochemical perspective by investigating specific risk factors such as deprivation, 

death of a parent, birth of a sibling, prematurity, war, and divorce, as well as their 

correlation with developmental outcomes. Rutter focused on searching for positive 

adaptation in children who had experienced significant risk rather than his original 

preoccupation with psychopathology pathways. Rutter's studies on adopted 

Romanian orphans' recovery processes following neglect and trauma also shifted 

focus from risk to potential positive adaptation to significant adversity. A fundamental 

principle of Rutter's work advocates that resilience is an ordinary adaptation 

providing the necessary resources are present rather than an intrinsic psychological 

trait. 

Furthermore, Rutter held a lifespan approach to resilience as a 'chemistry of the 

moment' rather than a static, permanent feature. Individual divergence speaks to the 

different ways in which children respond to risk. This divergence is outlined in his 



17 
 

statement that it is a requisite to assess individual needs regarding specific 

circumstances rather than to assume that all risk and protective factors have 

comparable effects in all contexts and all people (Rutter, 2013).  

Thus, early researchers in resilience observed that the relationship between 

vulnerability and deleterious outcomes was not universal since not all individuals 

evinced an adverse response to vulnerability. Moreover, how individuals respond 

resiliently to significant environmental risks also varies considerably. According to 

Masten (2011), some individuals experience a slight decline in functioning and then 

recover; others evince low to no diminished functioning, while others even produce 

better adaptive outcomes. The focus on competence despite exposure to significant 

adversity has made the concept of resilience a worthy pursuit for practitioners 

looking to promote and foster positive outcomes in vulnerable populations (Luthar, 

2000). A considerable body of research has documented the processes by which 

positive developmental outcomes among these vulnerable individuals and groups 

have been achieved (see Goldstein & Brooks, 2013; Masten, 2013, 2014; Panter-

Brick & Leckman, 2013; Rutter, 2012). In more recent times, the construct of 

resilience has been studied across broader domains of development, including 

families (Herdiana et al., 2017; Oh & Chang, 2014), schools (Doll, 2013; Ungar et al., 

2014), communities (Turliuc et al., 2013, Walsh, 2013) and societies (Benedikter et 

al., 2017; Hart et al., 2016).  

In answering how children can adapt to such significant threats in their lives and 

bounce back despite these odds, Masten and colleagues (2018) assert that people 

can adapt to adversity because resilience is partly due to the biological and cultural 

evolution of humans bestowing adaptive advantages. Moreover, they are protected 



18 
 

by many reserve systems primarily embedded in reciprocal transactions with others 

in their homes and communities. 

Three core questions drove the advancement of resilience as a science (Masten 

et al., 2018). Fundamentally, these questions, involving identifying significant threats 

that challenge the system, as well as the criteria for appraising how that system 

develops in the context of exposure to these kinds of threats, have been the focus of 

resilience studies over the past few decades (Luthar et al., 2000). These core 

questions in resilience studies of individuals and examples of constructs measured 

are represented in Table 2.1. 

Table 2.1 

Core Questions in Resilience Research  

What are the Challenges?         How Is the Person Doing?            What Processes  
                                                                                                        Support Success? 
 

Risks    Criteria for Adaptive Success  Promotive or Protective  
                                                                                                              Factors                                              

Trauma   Developmental tasks             Neurobiological 
Neglect     Mental health    Behavioural 
ACEs*    Physical health    Familial and relational 
Poverty     Happiness     Community 

Natural disaster    Work achievement    Cultural 
War     Caregiving     Societal 

*Adverse childhood experiences. 

 

Consequently, Masten and colleagues (2018) summarise the salient aim of 

resilience research as differentiating what makes a difference; the ways that account 

for how adaptively (based on the criteria under study) persons can respond to the 

demands posed by the adversity under study.  

2.3 The Four Waves of Resilience and the Emergence of the 5th Wave 

As is the case for the early stage of any science, the first wave of resilience 

focused on the description of the phenomenon. According to Richardson (2002), this 



19 
 

first wave emerged in the 1970s. It was concerned with phenomenological 

descriptions of 'resilient qualities' in individuals and systems that could predict 

personal and social success whilst protecting the individual from threats. This 

typically involved case reports and descriptions of people identified as at risk for poor 

outcomes yet appeared to be functioning reasonably well. These individuals and 

groups were compared to others with similar risk profiles yet depicted lesser 

success, as well as others who showed a similar profile of success yet did not have 

similar preceding risk profiles (Masten, 2015). According to Masten and colleagues 

(2018), the goal was to identify the factors that may account for these contextual 

differences of desirable adaptation despite adversity and signified the first resilience 

clues. This involved questions of 'how' and 'who' is resilient and preoccupations with 

how it would be measured (Masten, 2015). Researchers like Garmezy, Werner and 

Rutter began enquiring about what made a difference. This adjusted focus was 

salient since the populations studied were typically poor and neglected children 

expected to have the same deleterious outcomes (Werner et al., 1971). Except that 

they did not. Some children were able to bounce back despite the hardships that 

society expected should break them. Researchers wanted to know what made some 

children respond to severe threats in better-than-expected ways compared to peers 

and what factors may be involved within and outside the person that could account 

for this adaptation (O'Dougherty Wright et al., 2013).  

Researchers began investigating factors that might have assisted these at-risk 

children in overcoming the odds. Two approaches emerged: Person-focused and 

variable-focused methods. According to O'Dougherty Wright and colleagues (2013), 

the person-focused method sought to identify the characteristics of children with 

favourable outcomes compared to those who experienced poor outcomes in the 



20 
 

same situations. Selective strengths were highlighted as helping these individuals 

overcome adverse situations (Herrman et al., 2011). It was therefore viewed as a 

personal trait rather than a process. According to Van Breda (2001), resilience 

research in this early phase suggested that personal traits such as hardiness, self-

efficacy, locus of control and sense of coherence are essential characteristics of 

resilience. The resilient child was described as invulnerable or invincible 

(O'Dougherty Wright et al., 2013). Garmezy (1971) distinguished the 'vulnerable' and 

'invulnerable' of society and declared that through the study of forces that influence 

children to adapt, society benefits significantly more than efforts undertaken to create 

and promote prevention models to reduce vulnerability.  

This initial preoccupation with resilience as an inherent, individual factor did not 

last, as researchers began to recognise that protective factors also existed beyond 

the individual. The variable-focused methods investigated the relationships between 

personal characteristics and their environments. Werner and Smith (1982) identified 

four aspects of resilience, promoting mechanisms from their longitudinal study that 

distinguished resilient youths from other at-risk youths. These resilient characteristics 

included: 1) Active problem-solving, 2) constructive perception of difficult things, 3) 

ability to cultivate positive interactions with others, and 4) utilising faith as a means of 

meaning-making. Resilient factors associated with the child, their families, 

communities, and environments were explored in determining what would promote 

positive outcomes for at-risk youths. Thus, research at the time generated 

comprehensive lists of potentially protective factors (Luthar et al., 2009; Mizuno et 

al., 2016). 

First-wave conceptions of resilience research continue today and have attracted 

much criticism from scholars (see Garrett, 2016; Harrison, 2013). These researchers 



21 
 

argue that this approach places too much responsibility on the individual for their 

well-being and absolves the broader macro-structural players of society from dealing 

with adverse risks that influence child development (Van Breda & Theron, 2018). 

According to Masten and colleagues (2018), resilience is not a trait; however, 

individual differences in people (e.g., personality and cognitive skills) contribute to 

adaptive capacity. 

Once researchers comprehended the factors involved in resilience, they shifted 

their focus to how these factors worked (Vela, 2019). To promote resilience, 

researchers needed to understand the processes involved. Thus, the second wave 

of resilience concerned itself with the explanatory process and how individuals 

possessed the ingredients needed to bounce back from adversity. One such 

conception included the process (or law) of disruption and reintegration described by 

Flach (1997), which outlined how individuals acquired the resilient qualities identified 

in the first wave of resilience. This two-step model postulated that adversity led to 

disruption, necessitating the individual to deal with said disruption through 

reintegration. He argued that all living structures have a homeostatic force that keeps 

pushing them toward coherence. Flach further asserted that the individual's 

homeostasis must be broken down (disrupted) to build it up again (reintegrate). This 

'resilient reintegration' involved the individual gaining valuable insight from the 

adversity to produce growth and attain a more adaptive, higher homeostasis level.  

However, it was only when Michael Rutter (1993) and Edith Grotberg (1995) 

began championing the role of contextual interactions between the individual and 

their environments that the second wave truly gained momentum. Rutter posited 

resilience as 'protective mechanisms within a dynamic model' where the individual 

actively reacts to the environment to emerge resiliently (Coronado-Hijón, 2016). 



22 
 

Thus, the reciprocal transaction between person and environment in promoting 

resilience over time emerged. This wave adopted a more developmental systems 

approach (e.g., families, groups, communities) that focused on positive adaptation in 

the context of risk and identifying protective factors within the environmental systems 

(O'Dougherty Wright et al., 2013). According to O'Dougherty Wright and colleagues, 

the salient factors were now more in the transactions among individuals and the 

various systems in which their development was rooted. Here, there was a 

movement from resilience being seen as an individualised trait to a dynamic 

interaction process between the individual and many systems within which the 

individual reacts and interacts. Accordingly, there are numerous causes and 

pathways to resilience. These pathways often interact with biological, social, and 

psychological means throughout the lifespan (Herrman et al., 2011).   

Masten (2011) described that while exploring protective mechanisms were being 

undertaken to understand resilience processes better, children globally were still 

growing up in adversity without the luxury of time for science to run its course. 

Hence, the third wave of resilience marked the push to translate findings from the 

first and second waves into meaningful intervention strategies and programmes to 

promote resilience. This new focus led to experiments and theory testing in 

randomised controlled trials and confirmed that resilience could be promoted and 

make a difference in children's developmental trajectories (Oh et al., 2018). Masten 

and colleagues (2018) maintain that while it is challenging to evaluate the potential 

for adapting to risks and threats prior to positive adaptation to adversity, it is 

theoretically possible. The need to change developmental pathways by increasing 

strategies to identify adaptation capacity and actively promote resilience was 

emphasised. The experiments targeting the hypothesised resilience processes 



23 
 

began to take precedence in the research (Luthar et al., 2000). This direction proved 

to be a slow and challenging undertaking due to the challenges of undertaking 

longitudinal studies and the uncertainty in accepting a gold standard for measuring 

resilience (Gößling-Reisemann et al., 2018). Regardless, the research and practice 

movement began involving actions intended to promote resilience (O'Dougherty 

Wright et al., 2013). In this phase, the assumption was that the effective promotion of 

resilience required exposure to risk and adversity – albeit controlled (Rutter, 2012). 

Questions about the best time to introduce intervention strategies were also 

deliberated. It was evinced that the timing and nature of the intervention could 

strengthen and prolong the resilient effects (O'Dougherty Wright et al., 2013). An 

explicit focus on testing theories of change (see Masten, 2011, 2018; Toth et al., 

2011) continues to be a mark of third-wave resilience research. Ultimately, it is only 

by recognising the comprehensive processes fundamental to positive adaptation 

despite the conditions of adversity that researchers and practitioners will be able to 

intervene in vulnerable children's lives.   

Over time, the potential for generating additional knowledge due to the advances 

in technologies and methodologies reflected the expansion of resilience as a science 

across multiple levels of analysis and initiated the fourth wave of resilience research 

(Gößling-Reisemann et al., 2018). This new wave introduced multi-level research 

into genetic and brain levels to social interaction and systems-level (e.g., community 

resilience and global resilience). Researchers are now more concerned with how 

different systems contribute to an individual child's resilience (Masten, 2014). The 

fourth wave of resilience concerns epigenetic and neurobiological processes and 

how these processes and systems interact to shape development over time. This 

direction of resilience science is reported by O'Dougherty Wright and colleagues 



24 
 

(2013) as based on multi-level transactions between genes, neurobiological 

development and adaptation, behaviour, and context at various levels. This 

explanation also fits Masten's (2007) assertion that adaptation is inherently multi-

level because development results from probabilistic epigenesis and the numerous 

interaction processes across multiple levels of function with gene-environment 

interplay.  

Furthermore, resilience is more recently conceptualised as a multi-level 

phenomenon that operates across and interacts between multiple systems. The 

fourth wave of resilience, therefore, attempts to integrate the behavioural sciences 

with life and neurosciences to construe a multifaceted, holistic comprehension of 

resilience as a phenomenon (see Ebersöhn & Bower, 2013; Masten & Obradovic, 

2006). Much of the current trends in fourth-wave resilience research seek to 

investigate gene and environment interaction (see Cicchetti, 2012; Elbau et al., 

2019), differential susceptibility (see Belsky, 2013; Morgan, 2012), regulating 

maladaptive systems in the individual (see Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2016; Ong, 

2019) as well as other integrative models of resilience (Acosta et al., 2017; Liu et al., 

2017). According to Masten and colleagues (2018), the fourth wave of resilience can 

be described as being more focused on the integrative processes involved within 

and across multi-level, interconnected, and complex adaptive systems. These 

adaptive systems range from the molecular to the socio-cultural levels. 

The fifth wave of resilience concerns developing a framework for addressing 

societal inequalities to mitigate risks for vulnerable children (Hart et al., 2016). Hart, 

known for her pioneering work with academic resilience, heads up the movement 

from the University of Brighton and the non-profit organisation, 'Boingboing' 

(reference to the 'bouncing back' aspect of resilience). The prevailing idea is that 



25 
 

resilience-based knowledge can influence broader adversity contexts. Here, 

resilience goes beyond the individual and their social environments to reach the 

macro structural systems of societies. Hart and colleagues (2016) describe resilience 

as overcoming adversity with the potential to transform such adversity. This idea 

aligns with Prilleltensky's (2005) assertion that resilience needs to be redefined as 

the ability to cope with adversity and the power to challenge the very existence of 

inequality and injustice in society. A focus on resilience as a social justice issue is 

gaining momentum such that 'changing the odds' has more salience than 

'overcoming the odds' (Van Breda & Theron, 2018). 

There is an increasing concern about the effects of threats such as war, poverty, 

climate change, and pandemics, and the resultant displacements of these disasters 

on the overall well-being of children (Masten et al., 2018). Consequently, these 

threats to child development, both present and future, can serve as a driving force of 

worldwide interest in resilience research that transcends the boundaries of multiple 

sectors and sciences. 

2.4 The Construct of Resilience 

The difficulty in defining the construct of resilience has much to do with the varied 

conceptualisations of the term. Researchers agree that any conceptualisation of 

resilience requires the critical components of risk and positive adaptation (see Luthar 

et al., 2020; Masten, 2014; Rutter, 2013; Ungar, 2012). Another comprehension of 

resilience considers developmental tasks in measuring risk and adaptation 

(Obradović et al., 2012). Developmental tasks are those expectations we, as a 

society, have for what children should do to be considered 'normative'. There are 

universal developmental tasks, including those developmental expectations across 

societies (e.g., sitting, walking, talking, and forming attachment bonds), that occur 



26 
 

regardless of cultural and environmental differences (Black et al., 2017). After that, it 

is expected that early childhood tasks such as following simple instructions, obeying 

parents, and learning how to behave in society are mastered before new 

expectations at school (e.g., reading, writing, learning mathematics, and getting 

along with one's teacher and peers) are negotiated. In adolescence, individuals 

begin to undergo puberty changes and master those tasks that would prepare them 

for adult society roles (Black et al., 2017). These are all examples of universal 

developmental tasks.  

Additionally, those distinct developmental tasks are more culturally influenced and 

might be seen in one culture and not in another (Theron & Liebenberg, 2015). Rites 

of passage between childhood and adulthood are one such culturally-specific 

developmental task. In Australia, indigenous adolescent boys undertake what is 

commonly called "walkabout" to traverse the natural environment (Despres, 2008). 

This cultural practice is similar to the South African isiXhosa practice of ulwaluko as 

part of the initiation into manhood (Manona et al., 2018). These are two examples 

symbolising maturity in a specific cultural context. Other examples of distinct 

developmental tasks include religious rituals and practices in which youths learn 

specific sacred texts and commit to their faith as entwined into their culture (Masten, 

2014). According to Hart and colleagues (2016), doing well or bouncing back after 

exposure to development threats has been a common and widely held conception of 

resilience. For example, a child's independence for navigating challenges in their 

environment can be compromised if an overbearing parent does not allow the child 

to experience normal risks and problem-solving. This obstruction can take the form 

of learned helplessness and increases the likelihood that the child will become 

dependent on the parent to negotiate threats for them. When the parent is educated 



27 
 

Macro

Exo

Meso

Micro

on the risks of over-involvement and allows the child to develop independence in 

healthy ways, the child can become less anxious and more confident to deal with 

adversity. 

Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1995) postulated that a child's development is based on 

their interactions with many other systems of life, including family, the school system, 

peers, and the environments around them, as well as the broader socio-political and 

socio-cultural environments. Accordingly, the individual is part of a system of nested 

structures encompassing the person's environment. The child is a system that 

transacts with friends, family, and community at multiple system levels. 

Bronfenbrenner (1979) theorised four nested structures: the microsystem, the 

mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem. The chronosystem incorporated 

the temporal dimension of his model and was only added much later. These systems 

are reflected in Figure 2.1. 

Figure 2.1 

Nested Model of Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory 

 

  
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

Bronfenbrenner, 1979 

 

According to Bronfenbrenner, some systems are proximal and direct (e.g., a child 

interacting with their teacher), whilst others are indirect (e.g., a parent's work 



28 
 

environment that may affect the family and child financially). These systems change 

over time – as do the risks and supports within the systems. 

Bronfenbrenner and Crouter (1983) asserted that an ecological development 

model was best for conceptualising the transactional processes by which children 

influence and are influenced by their social environments. This conceptualisation of 

how children develop over time has influenced how researchers explain how children 

interact with their environments to promote resilience (Theron, 2015; Ungar, 2011). 

According to Theron (2015), while there are many and varied interpretations of 

resilience, research that considers a social ecology conception is gaining popularity 

(see Rutter, 2012; Theron & Liebenberg, 2015; Van Breda & Theron, 2018, van 

Rensburg et al., 2015). This interpretation means that it is acknowledged that 

resilience changes over time depending on the dynamics of system interactions and 

the resources that the child can access in times of adversity (see Masten, 2015; 

Southwick et al., 2016; Van Breda & Theron, 2018). These child resilience 

interpretations advocate that positive adaptation or adjustment to adversity is a 

process of constructive and culturally congruent transactions between children and 

their environments. This perspective shifts the responsibility from the individual as 

the sole contributor. It acknowledges the vital role of agents in the child's 

environments in fostering resilience without dismissing the individual's agency. 

Theron (2015) maintains that positive adjustment depends on meaningful 

collaborations between children and their socio-cultural ecologies. This dynamic, van 

Rensburg and colleagues (2018) suggest, is how societies can shape children's life-

worlds to be more conducive to resilience-building processes. 



29 
 

Kumpfer (1999) later developed a model for illuminating the processes and 

outcomes of resilience based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological model, as illustrated in 

Figure 2.2.  

Figure 2.2 

Kumpfer's Ecological Context Model 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Kumpfer's model highlighted four key component domains that influence 

resilience. The components included the stressor (stimuli that disrupt the individual 

or system and trigger resilience processes), individual characteristics (multi-level 

internal assets across biological, emotional, behavioural, social, cognitive, and 

spiritual domains), environmental context (the external proximal and distal critical 

domains of influence and associated protective and risk factors), and the outcome 

(how individuals overcome adverse effects and avoid the trajectories associated with 

these risks). Kumpfer (1999) further delineated two transactional pivots between 

these domains. Here, resilience is depicted as a dynamic construct – both as 

process and outcome – predicted by prior positive adjustment.  

The past decades have seen the emergence of psychology movements such as 

'positive psychology' and 'happiness' (Layard, 2005; Seligman et al., 2000). These 

movements introduced a marked preference for researchers, practitioners, and 



30 
 

policymakers to emphasise the positive rather than the maladaptive (Mohaupt, 

2008). Resilience separates itself from other positive approach constructs in the way 

positive adaptation is achieved: The first condition is that adversity must be 

considered more significant than the typical day-to-day challenges experienced by 

the population and reflect harmful life incidents quantitatively associated with 

adjustment issues (Vella & Pai, 2019). These are risks and vulnerabilities expected 

to (more often than not) give rise to adverse outcomes, while higher intensity and 

frequency are expected to lead to more severe outcomes. The second condition is 

that such individuals must evince positive adaptation; a positive response that 

enables them to achieve the functioning or outcomes of individual and environmental 

tasks despite this adversity. Thus, resilience became understood as a positive 

adaptation despite adversity (Luthar et al., 2014). This perspective explains why a 

child who evinces successful outcomes may be described as competent or adaptive 

but not necessarily resilient unless they have experienced the specific statistical 

magnitude of the defined adversity. Masten (2001) captured the essence of 

resilience in two words, "ordinary magic". Over the past fifty years of empirical 

research, this ordinary magic has been verified concerning individuals who have 

overcome significant hardship whilst demonstrating positive developmental 

outcomes.  

Definitions of resilience continue to develop and evolve with advances in 

research. Resilience is not a term restricted to psychology; it is explored across 

disciplines from the economic/financial sciences, the natural and physical sciences, 

the medical sciences, and the social sciences (Herrman et al., 2011). The term 

resilience emanates from the Latin word resiliens, which refers to the elastic 

properties of a substance, and the verb resilire, which means rebounding or 



31 
 

bouncing back. In the economic/financial world, resilience can be described as an 

economy's ability to cope financially in uncertain times; in physics, resilience can 

refer to the degree of potential energy in an elastic material when deformed; in 

ecology, it refers to the ability of an ecosystem to return to its original state after 

being disturbed, or resisting damage. In the field of medicine, resilience embodies 

one's ability to recognise pain and its purpose to tolerate it until normalisation, or the 

body's ability to recover and heal from fatigue, injury, or disease. The term can be 

used in reference to the ability of countries and cities to deal with/protect their 

citizens against natural and manmade disasters such as political conflicts, climate 

change, social inequality, epidemics, and pandemics such as COVID-19, climate 

change, social inequality, economic instability, and even to describe cities' security 

against physical, social, and economic challenges (termed 'urban resilience'). 

Although empirical research on resilience has proliferated over the years, 

criticisms have been levelled at work in this area. These criticisms have generally 

focused on ambiguities in definitions and terminology, the multidimensional nature of 

resilience, instability in the phenomenon of research, and theoretical concerns (see 

Luthar et al., 2015). 

2.4.1 Ambiguities in Definition and Terminology 

Resilience has not been a simple concept to define. Furthermore, it is not merely 

a case of variance between the different faculties of study, such as the physical and 

natural sciences, medicine, ecology, or within these fields. According to Vella and 

Pai (2019), there continues to be a low agreement in the definition, understanding 

and measurement of resilience despite the phenomenon having been studied for 

several decades. Moreover, the ambiguities in the definition have put the construct 

validity of resilience into question and have attracted significant criticism (Fletcher & 



32 
 

Sarkar, 2013; Kolar, 2011; Van Breda, 2018). According to Bonanno and Diminich 

(2013), confusion about the phenomenon of resilience can also be attributed to the 

ambiguous use of a single term to describe different forms of resilience. Some define 

resilience as returning to the original state of being (bouncing back) (see Rutter, 

2013). For example, the field of psychology has held that resilience refers to the 

capacity for adaptation and 'bouncing back' of an individual in the face of significant 

adversity (Windle, 2020). Thus, adversity (or significant risk) and positive adaptation 

must be present for resilience. In contrast, others may define it as achieving a better 

state (adaptation or 'steeling') (see Garmezy, 1993). 

The growing number of varied definitions of resilience leads to increasing 

contradictions between the individual interpretations, and the concept is thus 

gradually watered down. As a result, it becomes more difficult to translate theory into 

practice and to precisely determine the goals, strategies, instruments, and actors in 

"promoting" resilience (Hanisch, 2016). 

One of the salient risks in definitional diversity includes the many varied 

conclusions ascribed to the processes of risk and protection and the incongruent 

estimations for resilience rates among similar risk populations (Luthar et al., 2015). 

Thus, for statistics on resilience to be valid and reliable, there needs to be a 

universal understanding of the concept. In a similar vein, Masten and colleagues 

(2018) argue that "Global threats require integrated theories, knowledge, 

intervention, and training, all of which are facilitated by scalable definitions that can 

be aligned across sectors and disciplines" (p. 2). There is imperative to bring 

together the conceptions of resilience from all domains of study into one universally 

defined construct to mobilise efforts to meet the risks to development in our world. 



33 
 

However, the conceptualisation and definition of resilience have undergone 

considerable change over time (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). Much of this can be put 

down to three points of contention. The first argument involves the question of 

'when'; when should resilience exist or be evident? Those who interpret resilience as 

a trait may say it occurs before an unexpected or challenging event. Others insist it 

can only be observed after such an event (see Tarter et al., 1999). The second 

contention speaks to the circumstances in which resilience gains its relevance and 

therefore includes the question of 'what'; what constitutes adversity? Many may 

describe rare and devastating events such as natural disasters, epidemics, or the 

sudden death of a loved one – events that would typically be associated with lower 

expectations of recovery. Others may define the 'what' as more chronic risks 

associated with phenomena such as societal inequalities, prejudice, and historical 

poverty (Hart et al., 2016). The final contention involves the 'how'; how do we define 

the state of being after coping? 

The myriad of contexts in which resilience exists makes these questions 

challenging to answer, which explains the divergent conceptualisations of the 

construct. However, Masten and colleagues (2018) assert that the data from the 

voluminous literature on resilience over the past two decades has shown 

extraordinary consistency. This consistency has led to what Masten et al. describe 

as a broad understanding of resilience that speaks to multiple levels and systems 

across disciplines, being the potential of a system to adapt positively to adversities 

that threaten the development of the system. This definition speaks to the capacity of 

a system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten that system's stability, 

life, or development (Denckla et al., 2020). This definition applies to an individual and 

when studying resilience in families, communities, organisations, economies, and 



34 
 

global issues (Isaacs et al., 2020). Masten and colleagues (2018) assert that this 

definition works because it is scalable – whether in small systems within a person's 

body or at a larger, global scale. There is a growing consensus that an individual's 

resilience is interdependent and related to the resilience of many other systems with 

which they interact. 

A review of how the critical contributors to resilience research show congruence 

are indicated in the following expositions: Garmezy (1971) defined resilience as a 

discernible capability despite experiences with considerable stressors. He further 

described that resilience is "not necessarily impervious to stress; instead, resilience 

is designed to reflect the capacity of recovery and maintained adaptive behaviour 

that may follow an initial retreat or incapacity upon initiating a stressful event" (p. 7). 

Werner and Smith (1989) defined resilience as 

People’s capacity to cope effectively with the internal stresses of their 

vulnerabilities (such as labile patterns of autonomic reactivity, developmental 

imbalances, unusual sensitivities) and external stresses (such as illness, 

significant loss, and dissolution of the family) and to emerge unscathed and to 

develop a stable, healthy personality. (p. 4) 

Rutter (2006) described resilience as an interactive phenomenon concerning the 

permutations of significant risks and a relatively adaptive psychological outcome 

despite such risks. 

In the above descriptions of the term resilience, we see more agreement than 

divergence. Why, then, do so many conclude that there exists little consensus? 

According to Olsson and colleagues (2003), much of the challenge over the 

definition of resilience led to a substantial debate as to whether resilience constituted 

a trait, an outcome, or a process. An example of such confusion emerged with 



35 
 

disagreement in using the terminology 'resilience' and 'resiliency'. Much of the 

misunderstanding over resilience and resiliency emerged from the ego-resiliency 

literature in the 1980s (Block & Block, 1980). Here, ego resiliency referred to the set 

of traits that reflected such characteristics as self-esteem, flexibility, and hardiness, 

concepts familiar in the field of positive humanistic psychology. Moreover, Trivedi 

and colleagues (2011) posit that resilience may be considered a constellation of 

traits that include conscientiousness, optimism, and extraversion. Similar constructs 

such as hardiness, grit, well-being, stress resistance, and other concepts related to 

the positive psychology movement have often been erroneously conflated with 

resilience. Resilience, defined through the lens of a personal trait, is viewed as a 

stable characteristic of the individual, which permits one to moderate the effects of 

stress whilst being the protective ability when encountering adversity (see Ahern et 

al., 2008; Gooding et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2015). 

When the conceptualisation of resilience is reduced merely to a trait or a set of 

individual characteristics, it changes how resilience is defined, measured, and 

operationalised. According to Ungar (2011), one of the signal criticisms for the trait 

perspective of resilience is the possibility of underestimating the contextual and 

external factors that foster resilience. For example, self-report measures that identify 

personal attributes are typically the mechanism for measuring resilience in a 

resilience-as-trait conceptualisation and tend to disregard family and environmental 

entities (Prince-Embury, 2006). In addition, Fergus and Zimmerman (2005) argue 

that self-report measures alone are not congruent with the current conceptualisation 

of resilience-as-process. The relationships between variables are essential for a 

comprehensive understanding of the dynamic nature of resilience. 



36 
 

Isolated

PTE

Time

Minimal impact resilience Recovery Chronic

Therefore, there was a gradual movement to include contexts in the 

conceptualisation of resilience. According to Bonanno and Diminich (2013), most of 

the research concerning resilience in the developmental literature is predicated on 

positive adaptation in the context of chronic adverse experiences such as chronic 

poverty. 

The shift in focus to positive outcomes in the context of pervasive and continuous 

adversity such as chronic poverty (Garmezy, 1993; Luthar, 1999), war, and natural 

disasters (Betancourt, 2011; Sander et al., 2003) lends itself to a contextual frame. 

This contextual lens emphasises the measurement of adjustment over time, focusing 

on long-term or distal outcomes (Masten & Narayan, 2012). Consequently, the 

distinction between resilience and maladjustment is challenging to discern until the 

adverse context has subsided. Bonanno and Diminich (2013) refer to this form of 

resilience as 'emergent resilience', which is distinguishable from the form of minimal-

impact resilience conceptualised following an isolated potentially traumatic life event 

(PTE) (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4).  

Figure 2.3 

Minimal-impact Resilience 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



37 
 

Chronically 

stressful 

circumstances

Time

Emergent resilience Chronic

Figure 2.3 illustrates how minimal-impact resilience is a steady course of healthy 

adjustment post an isolated PTE. This is depicted in recovery as a gradual return to 

baseline. These PTE stressors produce transitory distresses in regular adjustment 

and functioning (de Kloet et al., 2011). Resilience following an isolated PTE is best 

measured as a stable trajectory of well-adjusted functioning before and after the 

event. There has been a shift in research into more isolated, acute life stressors and 

relatively proximal patterns of positive adjustment when considering mental health 

(see Bonanno & Mancini, 2012). This change is because the PTE threats and the 

parameters of outcome trajectories can be more easily observed and defined. By 

contrast, chronic adversity elicits more persistent patterns of variability, leading to 

more persistent changes in various psychological and physiological functions.  

Figure 2.4 

Emergent Resilience 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.4 illustrates emergent resilience as a gradual process toward positive 

adaptation post chronic adverse circumstances. An example of this type of resilience 

may occur if a child experiences the challenges of being exposed to the continuous 

risks associated with a context of domestic violence at home. If this child comes to 

survive these threats and demonstrates normative development and culturally 



38 
 

appropriate expectations for competence, then they are described as resilient. 

According to Bonanno and Diminch (2013), the study of resilience in children has 

concentrated principally on chronic and continuous adversity and patterns of 

emergent resilience. Lately, developmental research has expanded to include those 

risks that are more isolated, such as those outlined by van Rensburg and colleagues 

(2015) as 'specific negative life events', one of the four categories of risk (e.g., 

natural disasters, death of a parent). However, a criticism of minimal-impact 

resilience research is that it tends to ignore the broader ecological context of the 

child. For this reason, the developmental sciences have typically focused on 

emergent resilience as it embodies context-specificity.  

Since resilience is a context-specific concept, researchers should be wary of 

accepting a universal list of protective factors whilst assuming that these can be 

applied similarly to all groups and contexts (Fergus et al., 2005). Thus, it is crucial to 

consider that what constitutes adversity or risk for one child may not be so for 

another. As Vella and Pal (2019) describe, the individual also brings specific 

personal factors and predispositions – both negative and positive – that transact with 

the adversity and the potential for a positive outcome. Moreover, what can be 

considered a positive outcome also varies according to the individual in question. 

Therefore, resilience is not a static construct in which outcomes can be calculated 

based on specific positive or negative variables but rather is a dynamic process of a 

continuous transaction.  

Extant literature defines resilience as a process whereby individuals engage in 

creative means within contexts of adversity whilst using protective mechanisms and 

processes to mitigate threats (see Theron, 2016; Van Breda, 2015). Ann Masten 

(2015) describes the conception of resilience as influenced by mediating processes 



39 
 

that foster positive outcomes. She further reflects that resilience is the capacity of a 

system to respond effectively to risks that threaten the system's function, survival, or 

development. Alternatively, Luthar and colleagues (2000) describe resilience as a 

dynamic process that involves positive adaptation despite substantial adversity. 

Process-orientated definitions of resilience tend to consider two premises: resilience 

is both dynamic – in that it is characterised by constant change – and context-

specific – in that one can be resilient in one context and less so in another.  

Windle (2011) defines resilience as involving managing, adapting, and navigating 

severe stressors by utilising resources across multi-level spheres to facilitate an 

ability to bounce back from adversity. In this definition, both individual and 

environmental factors that interact to foster resilient outcomes are recognised from a 

developmental perspective. Windle (2010) describes that utilising resources both 

within and around the person is necessary to promote resilience for a context-

specific time that allows the individual to bounce back from adversity. Similarly, 

Ungar (2008) constructs a bridge between the individual and the environment to 

demonstrate further how resilience develops as a transactional process. He states: 

In the context of exposure to significant adversity, resilience is both the 

capacity of individuals to navigate the psychological, social, cultural, and 

physical resources that sustain their well-being and their capacity 

individually and collectively to negotiate for these resources to be provided 

and experienced culturally meaningful ways. (p. 225) 

Here, again, the emphasis on resources within the individual and the environment 

forms an essential cog in the mechanism of fostering resilience. Ungar and 

Liebenberg (2011) further suggest that these resources must be negotiated to 



40 
 

Adversity

Mediating 
Processes

Better-than-
expected 
Outcomes

navigate adversity. It is these mediating processes that determine the outcome 

following adversity. This dynamic is depicted in Figure 2.5 (see Van Breda, 2018). 

Figure 2.5  

Resilience as a Process 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

Van Breda (2018) asserts that a feasible definition of resilience best incorporates 

the components of adversity, mediating processes, and better-than-expected 

outcomes with a particular focus on the mediating processes. This understanding of 

resilience is very much in line with Ungar's (2011, 2012) social ecology of resilience 

theory (SERT). Additionally, Van Breda (2018) opined that the debate regarding 

process and outcome in resilience theory tends to manufacture an unnatural divide. 

Ultimately, many authoritative resilience scholars hold the concept of resilience as 

stemming from many systems within the person's social environments (Cicchetti, 

2013; Masten, 2018; Panter-Brick & Leckmann, 2013; Ungar, 2012; van Breda & 

Theron, 2018). 

Both person-based and process-based understandings of resilience involve the 

aspects of risk and positive adjustment (Vella & Pal, 2019). Thus, the 



41 
 

conceptualisation of resilience informs how adversity and outcome are defined. The 

American Psychological Association (2014, para. 4) defines resilience as "the 

process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even 

significant sources of threat". Similarly, Southwick and colleagues (2015) outline 

additional definitions of resilience with the commonality that all involve the process of 

adapting to and bouncing back from adversity. These authors maintain that 

resilience is seen as the potential of a dynamic system to respond effectively to 

problems that put the viability, function, and development of the system at risk whilst 

having the capacity to rein resources to maintain well-being.  

Despite the extensive accumulation of literature over 50 years, much of the early 

findings still have relevance today (Bethel et al., 2017). According to these authors, 

there is an encouraging convergence of data across the literature from the initial 

undertakings by crucial contributors such as Garmezy (1985) and Rutter (1987) to 

more recent studies (Luthar et al., 2015; Masten, 2015). According to Masten and 

colleagues (2018), many of the essential protective factors identified in the early 

pioneering resilience studies remain central despite the significant advances in 

methodology, technology and multiple levels of analysis described previously in the 

fourth wave of resilience. This finding boasts well for resilience's reliability and 

validity over time as a unique field of science. 

2.4.2 The Multidimensional Nature of Resilience 

The multidimensional nature of resilience refers to findings that some high-risk 

children exhibit competence in some domains but problems in other areas. For 

example, in their study Kaufman and colleagues (1994) found that over 60% of the 

cohort of at-risk children with histories of maltreatment were academically resilient, 

whilst only 21% of those displayed social capability. Similarly, some studies indicated 



42 
 

that adolescence who exhibited successful adaptation often struggled with 

psychological difficulties (such as mood disorders and post-traumatic stress) over 

time (Luthar et al., 1993). This divergence has led some researchers to question 

whether resilience is a truthful construct or a mythical entity (Liddle, 1994).  

However, according to Infurna and Luthar (2017), one of the limitations of earlier 

longitudinal studies on resilience is that resilience was primarily considered a single 

trajectory whilst disregarding how specific individuals arrived at resilient outcomes. 

Incidentally, it has been recognised that individuals may show different resilience 

trajectories (e.g., Hobfoll et al., 2010). For example, some vulnerable or at-risk 

individuals can demonstrate proficiency in certain facets of life only to show difficulty 

in other domains. Thus, children can be resilient in terms of a specific aspect and 

remain (or become vulnerable) in other areas. Moreover, individuals can also be 

resilient at a particular point or phase in life, only to experience vulnerability at a later 

junction (Denckla et al., 2020). Also, children exposed to an acute stressor may 

continue functioning as proficiently as before the event, whilst other children in a 

similar circumstance may evince lower functioning for a period only to bounce back 

and reclaim competence. Some may suffer delays in functioning without recovery, 

while others may exhibit continuous low functioning levels before and after the 

trauma. 

Mahdiani and Ungar (2021) conclude that researchers have to remain sensitive 

when using terminology like resilience to imply that all adaptation under stress is 

optimal across all domains. Cognisance of the multidimensional nature of resilience 

should always be kept in mind. This implies that while an at-risk child may excel 

within a particular domain it should never obscure the possibility that significant 

problems may be experienced in other areas of functioning. Furthermore, it should 



43 
 

be recognised that all individuals, whether at-risk or otherwise, show fluctuations in 

adjustment over time. Therefore, uneven functioning across domains does not 

invalidate resilience as a construct. However, according to Luthar and colleagues 

(2015) this uneven functioning could carry a critical message for researchers – t