Understanding resilience: Similarities and differences in the perceptions of children, parents and practitioners

Children and Youth Services Review 99 (2019) 270–278

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Understanding resilience: Similarities and differences in the perceptions of children, parents and practitioners

T

⁎

Myfanwy McDonalda, , Derek McCormacka, Elbina Avdagica, Laura Hayesa, Tracey Phana, Penny Dakinb a b

Parenting Research Centre, 5/232 Victoria Parade, East Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth, GPO Box 2807, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

A B S T R A C T

The purpose of this paper is to highlight how commonalities and differences between Australian children, parents and practitioners in terms of how they understand child resilience could inform the design and delivery of initiatives that aim to promote child resilience. A qualitative analysis of data from focus groups with children (n = 44), parents (n = 42) and practitioners (n = 107) undertaken in six Australian states and territories found key differences between the three groups in terms of: what they think resilience looks like in a child; and the factors that influence child resilience. The analysis also found a common agreement about the importance of supportive relationships to children's resilience. The findings suggest that initiatives that aim to promote child resilience may be more engaging and useful to children and parents if they: educate parents about the factors that influence child resilience; communicate the aims of resilience interventions to parents and children; focus on building supportive relationships for children; and explore community attitudes towards risk-taking.

1. Introduction Resilience is a useful yet contested concept. It is useful because it allows us to recognise, and thereby better understand, how people can thrive despite serious adversity (Shean, 2015). However, a lack of consensus among researchers and theorists about key issues relating to resilience – including the definition and measurement of resilience, and the implementation of resilience initiatives – means that the usefulness of the concept is sometimes undermined (Shean, 2015). A lack of clarity about how to measure resilience, for example, can make it difficult to determine whether resilience initiatives are working (Alvord and Grados, 2005; Khanlou and Wray, 2014; Luthar et al., 2000). Resilience was once thought to be a trait of “invulnerable” children, however in the early to mid-1980s researchers and theorists began to conceptualise resilience in a different way; that is, as dynamic, interactional processes that come about through the interactions between children and their environments (Shean, 2015; Ungar, 2011). Hence, although there is a lack of consensus among researchers and theorists about many aspects of resilience, one area of consensus is that resilience is not something that resides within a child, nor an inborn trait (Shean, 2015). Following on from this shift in perspective, many prominent researchers and theorists working in the field of resilience advocate for resilience interventions that target children and the environments

around them (e.g. parents, families, schools, community) (Shean, 2015). Michael Ungar is one of the most passionate and prominent advocates for resilience interventions that target children's environments. When it comes to resilience interventions Ungar promotes an ‘ecological focus’ to ensure the greatest number of children have access to the resources they need to “grow up well” (2011, p. 13). Other prominent researchers in the field, such as Emmy Werner, advocate for an ecological understanding of resilience that considers the different ‘levels’ that promote children's resilience (i.e. individual, family, community) (Werner, 1989). Promoting resilience among children has the potential to bring about numerous benefits including social and emotional wellbeing, and a reduction in mental health problems (Dray et al., 2017; Farrelly et al., 2014; Windle et al., 2011). These benefits extend to society also through a reduction in the costs of mental health treatments and improved community participation (Khanlou and Wray, 2014; Windle et al., 2011). In Australia, interest in resilience-promoting initiatives has increased – especially initiatives for children – as the association between childhood resilience and mental health has become more prominent (see, for example, beyondblue, 2016; VicHealth, 2015).

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. McDonald), [email protected] (D. McCormack), [email protected] (E. Avdagic), [email protected] (L. Hayes). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.016 Received 4 September 2018; Received in revised form 15 January 2019; Accepted 15 January 2019 Available online 21 January 2019 0190-7409/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Children and Youth Services Review 99 (2019) 270–278

M. McDonald et al.

them” (South et al., 2016, p. 190). The authors hypothesise that this understanding of resilience among foster carers – that resilience is the ability of the child cut off, deny or distance themselves” from current events – may reflect their experiences of with children in out-of-home care, rather than their understanding of resilience as a construct. They also hypothesise that because social workers manage the “practical reality” of what is happening to the child, they are less likely to see the child cutting off or distancing themselves from what is happening (South et al., 2016). The idea that social workers have a different view of child resilience because they manage the “practical reality” of what is happening to the child could be disputed. After all, foster carers also manage the “practical reality” of what is happening to children in out-of-home care. Regardless of why these differences exist, it is difficult to dispute South et al., (2016) conclusion that the differing perspectives of foster carers, teachers and social workers come about because, “their role and relationship with the child are quite different” (p. 190). Parents and teachers differing role and relationship with children not only influence their definition of resilience, but also their perceptions of children's levels of resilience. Children are typically viewed as more resilient by their parents when compared to their teachers (Miljevic-Ridicki et al., 2017; Rautiainen, Räty, & Kasanen, 2017). These contrasting perspectives between parents and teachers about a child's resilience may be the result of the impact of differing environmental contexts on children; there are differing demands on children in a school environment when compared to their home environment (Miljevic-Ridicki et al., 2017). One common theme emerging from research that examines the perspectives of parents, practitioners and/or children, is the importance all three groups place upon supportive relationships for children's resilience, especially relationships with parents, teachers and/or peers (Bell and Romano, 2015, Downey, 2014; Drapeau, 2007; Hill et al., 2006; Rochat and Hough, 2007; Hurley et al., 2015; Young et al., 2017). For example, among a group of vulnerable children living in the United States (aged 8–12 years, n = 50), support from various people in their lives – including their families and the broader community – was identified as a key aspect of educational resilience (Downey, 2014). A qualitative study examining Aboriginal parents' and service providers' (n = 36) perspectives on resilience among Aboriginal children also found that participants viewed strong and supportive family environments as a key aspect of Aboriginal children's resilience (Young et al., 2017). The importance of supportive relationships to children's resilience also emerges in studies examining practitioners' perspectives on the resilience of children in out-of-home care (Bell and Romano, 2015; Hurley et al., 2015). For example, in a qualitative study examining Canadian child welfare practitioners' perspectives on the resilience of children in out-of-home care (n = 11), stable, supportive relationships were identified as key to positive outcomes for children in out-of-home care. The authors of this study also noted that children in out-of-home care with multiple social networks – such as relationships with families of origin, teachers, friends and community members – function especially well (the definition of “functioning well” depended upon the practitioners' understandings of that term) (Bell and Romano, 2015). Regarding the factors that influence child resilience, research that focuses solely on practitioners indicates that they view environmental factors as especially significant (Bell and Romano, 2015; Hurley et al., 2015). For example, in a qualitative study examining the perspectives of child protection workers (n = 60) across three different countries (Canada, Ireland and Argentina), Hurley et al. (2015) found that they viewed resilience as a quality that is developed in the context of a supportive “social ecology”. Similarly, in the aforementioned qualitative study involving Canadian child welfare workers, Bell and Romano (2015) found that participants viewed resilience as something that is influenced by interconnected systems (such as the interconnected

1.1.1. The present study This paper reports upon the findings from a specific component of a larger project (The Children's Resilience Research Project) which aimed to develop professional guidelines for Australian practitioners who work with children (0–12 years) to promote childhood resilience (Avdagic et al., 2018). As part of this larger project, the Parenting Research Centre (PRC) and the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) undertook twelve focus groups across Australia to examine understandings of child resilience among:

• children (6–12 years); • parents (including primary caregivers such as foster and kinship carers); and • practitioners who work with children and families (e.g. early

childhood education and care professionals, maternal and child health nurses, school psychologists).

The purpose of these focus groups was to ensure the professional guidelines developed as part of the project reflected the views and perspectives of children, parents and practitioners. However, during the analysis phase of the project, it became clear that the data offered additional insights that could benefit policy-makers and service providers when developing resilience-promoting initiatives for children. For example, when developing and delivering initiatives designed to promote child resilience, we will have a much greater chance of success if we understand how children and parents understand resilience, because it provides an insight into which messages are likely to resonate with them. Similarly, if we understand how parents' views of resilience differ from practitioners' views of resilience, we can better equip practitioners with the skills to communicate key ideas about resilience. In this paper, we outline the commonalities and differences between children, parents and practitioners in terms of how they understand child resilience. We examine the implications of these commonalities and differences for resilience-building initiatives that target children, especially as they relate to the Australian context. 2. Background Although numerous studies have examined practitioners', parents' and children's views of children's resilience, few studies have examined the different perspectives between those groups. In the following discussion we describe key findings from the latter group of studies (i.e. studies that have examined the different perspective between these groups) and – due to the paucity of these – some of the common findings among the former group of studies (i.e. studies that examine practitioners, parents or children views). One of the studies that has examined practitioners' and parents' (i.e. foster carers) perspectives on child resilience used a Delphi survey to examine the views of social workers (n = 36), teachers (n = 34) and foster carers (n = 36) and how they understood the concept of resilience among children in out-of-home care (South et al., 2016). South et al. (2016) found that all three groups viewed resilience as an attribute of the individual child and as “a form of survival and adaptation in the face of difficult experiences” (p. 187). Based upon an analysis of statistical significance, the most significant differences in view of resilience were between foster carers and social workers. For example, foster carers were less familiar with the concept of resilience than social workers (Mann-Whitney p < .0005), more likely than social workers to agree that resilience involves a child “putting up a barrier around himself or herself” (Mann-Whitney p < .005) and more likely than social workers to agree that resilience is a “defence mechanism” (Mann-Whitney p < .0005). Foster carers' responses indicated that they viewed resilience as the ability of a child to “cut off, deny or distance themselves from what is happening to 271

Children and Youth Services Review 99 (2019) 270–278

M. McDonald et al.

protect themselves and overcome difficulties, sometimes alone but more often in alliance, especially with peers and parents” (Hill et al., 2006, p. 53). In other words, these children were not simply “victims” of their circumstances but able to take actions they could take to enhance their sense of safety and happiness (Hill et al., 2006).

system of the home, school and community). This ‘interconnected systems’ view of resilience aligns with Michael Ungar's theory of “decentrality”, which aims to draw attention away from the child and how they use environmental resources and focus attention on the processes by which the environment provides resources for use by the child. Ungar (2011) states that, “if resilience is to… inform interventions, our focus needs to shift from changing individuals to making social and physical ecologies facilitative [of resilience]” (p. 6). This ensures we are not blaming vulnerable children for their lack of resilience but focusing on the resources that enable or restrict children's opportunities (Ungar, 2013). Research indicates that this ‘interconnected systems’ view of resilience is less common among parents. Parents' perceptions and descriptions of child resilience focus on personal skills and capacities (e.g. problem-solving, goal setting, realistic expectations); resilience is something that resides within or is a characteristic of the child (Miljevic-Ridicki et al., 2017; Karkkainen et al., 2009; Mataga Tintor, 2013). This individualistic view of resilience is not borne out by research:

3. Methods 3.1. Data collection The data presented in this article was collected from:

• Focus groups with parents and children (6–12 years); and • Focus groups with practitioners who work with

children

(0–12 years) and families.

3.2. Parent and child focus groups We drew upon our existing relationships with Parent Engagement Champions (Parent Champions) at numerous schools across Australia to assist in the recruitment of parents and children for focus groups. Parent Champions include teachers, community development workers, school counsellors, and cultural liaison officers (beyondblue, 2018). Parent Champions at five schools were asked to invite parents of students aged 6–12 years old to a focus group at the school with their child. Parent Champions were responsible for contacting parents and confirming with the researchers which parents would attend. Potential participants were informed that the focus groups would be audio recorded and that photographs from the focus groups may be used in the in the professional guidelines developed for this project. Parent and child focus groups were scheduled for 90 min and were facilitated by at least two researchers. Moderation guides were developed to provide researchers with information about how to conduct and structure the focus groups. However, some flexibility was provided to researchers to ensure they could adapt the focus group to meet the needs of participants (e.g. the order of questions, the length of activities). All focus groups comprised three parts; some of which were intended for parents, others for parents and children:

“Despite the widespread belief that individual grit, extraordinary self-reliance, or some in-born, heroic strength of character can triumph over calamity, science now tells us that it is the reliable presence of at least one supportive relationship and multiple opportunities for developing effective coping skills that are essential building blocks for the capacity to do well in the face of significant adversity” (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2015). Interestingly, in a review of prominent theories about resilience, Mandie Shean notes that although many theorists recognise the influential role of the environment for children's resilience, most “focus their suggested interventions on identifying and changing individual-level characteristics of children… suggest[ing] that there is still a belief that the most effective way to promote resilience is through the child” (2015, p. 28). Although children understand the importance of supportive relationships to resilience, research with children indicates that they also tend to view resilience as something that resides within the individual. For example, one qualitative study undertaken in Croatia found that children (in the 7th grade, i.e. early adolescence, n = 13) viewed a resilient child as one who can resist negative influences (Mataga Tintor, 2013). In other words, it is a child's capacity to resist which makes them resilient. At the same time, however, when prompted to comment upon the characteristics of ‘resilient schools’ and ‘resilience communities’ those same children recognised that both schools and communities have a role to play in nurturing their resilience (Mataga Tintor, 2013). Research among children also demonstrates how they view themselves as active agents in the processes that influence and contribute to their resilience (Hill et al., 2006; Rochat and Hough, 2007). For example, in a qualitative study examining the experiences of children living in a South African province significantly affected by HIV and AIDS (n = 44), children identified how they played an active role in remaining connected to people who were willing to help them (Rochat and Hough, 2007). They also associated hope with self-reliance, and a belief in themselves as a key aspect of perseverance (Rochat and Hough, 2007). Another study examined children's (aged 8–14) views of resilience in disadvantaged urban areas in Scotland (Hill et al., 2006). Many of these children lived in areas where their activities and movements were restricted due to factors such as gang activity. The children identified numerous processes and mechanisms that they used to protect themselves and overcome difficulties they experienced. Moreover, the children shared that knowledge with each other, allowing them some level of control over their circumstances: “For the most part, the children and young people did not simply accept threats to their safety and happiness but took active steps to

1. an ice-breaking activity and a general discussion about the concept of resilience (parents); 2. children's views and perceptions of resilience using drawings, word association activities and an activity whereby parents and children used sticky-notes to identify what they believed were the most important ways to build children's resilience (parents and children); and 3. group reflection and discussion about what could be done to enhance children's resilience (parents). A list of the questions asked in the focus groups involving parents and children are included in Appendix A. Parents were also asked to provide some basic demographic information about themselves and their child. When consulting with the children, the facilitators modified their language to ensure concepts were understandable. For example, challenges and adversity were described as “a difficult time” or a “hard day.” Resilience was described as “getting over the hard time quickly and feeling strong again.” 3.3. Practitioner focus groups For the practitioner focus groups, we sought the participation of professionals for whom the professional guidelines are intended to support including: maternal and child health, early childhood 272

Children and Youth Services Review 99 (2019) 270–278

M. McDonald et al.

o o o o

education and care, mental health, primary schools, Out of School Hours Care (OOSHC) staff and play specialists. Participants were recruited from the existing professional networks of PRC and ARACY. We also asked members of the project advisory group to nominate potential participants for the practitioner focus groups. Potential participants were emailed an invitation and, if they were interested in participating, were asked to nominate the most convenient location for their participation (from a list of potential locations). Project staff followed up by phone or email to confirm focus group participation. The practitioner focus groups were scheduled for 2.5 h. As with the parent and child focus groups, a moderation guide was developed to provide facilitators with information about how to conduct and structure the focus groups. During the focus groups, participants were provided with detailed information about the preliminary findings of the project and were also provided with a copy of the draft professional guidelines to discuss. Participants were asked to provide feedback on the content of the draft professional guidelines, and to discuss their views about the best type of resilience intervention, the ideal timing and location of resilience interventions. They were also asked to recount stories about child resilience from their own practice. Practitioners were also asked to provide some basic information about their work and their professional history (e.g. number of years of professional experience).

• • •

the nature of resilience sources of resilience how practitioners, families or communities can build resilience specific resilience interventions searching for themes: the data in the spreadsheets was used by the two researchers to identify common themes, in each category, for children, parents and practitioners comparing themes: commonalities and differences between the groups (i.e. children, parents, practitioners) were identified by the two researchers reviewing themes: one researcher reviewed the transcripts from the focus groups as well as the other data sources to ensure all relevant data had been captured.

Because thematic analysis involves a level of subjectivity (Braun & Clarke; Vaismoradi et al., 2016), there was the potential for disagreement between the two researchers (e.g. a disagreement about whether a specific quote or statement was representative of a theme). In those cases, the two researchers involved in analysing the data sought to achieve consensus by discussing our differing viewpoints. Where consensus could not be achieved, we sought advice from a third professional with experience in knowledge translation who was familiar with the project and the data. 3.6. Participants

3.4. Funding and ethics approval

Five focus groups were undertaken with parents and children, and seven focus groups were undertaken with practitioners. Table 1 outlines the state/territory where these focus groups were undertaken. All focus groups were undertaken in metropolitan areas.

The Children's Resilience Research Project was funded by beyondblue with donations from Future Generation Global Investment Company Limited. The project was granted ethics approval from the Parenting Research Centre Human Research Ethics Committee, HREC App 37 (Melbourne, Australia).

3.7. Parent and child focus groups A total of 42 parents and 44 children participated in the focus groups. There was between 6 and 8 parent-child dyads in each focus group. Of those parents who provided the relevant data, the majority (74%, n = 27) had one child only and most were born in Australia (70%, n = 27). Only one parent was Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Of those parents who identified their employment status (n = 26), 54% were involved in home-duties and parenting on a full-time basis and 35% were in paid employment as a full-time, part-time or casual employee. The remaining parents were unemployed, seeking work, in a voluntary of unpaid role or participating in other activities (e.g. studying). Of those who identified their highest level of education (n = 26), just under half (46%) had a university degree. Of those children whose parents provided data on their children's age (n = 33), the majority were between the ages of 6–9 (52%), 42% were 10 years of age or older and the remainder (6%) were under the age of 5 years. Of those children whose parents provided data on their

3.5. Analysis We undertook a thematic analysis to identify key themes from the focus groups. A thematic analysis involves a systematic process of identifying, examining and describing patterns within data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Vaismoradi et al., 2016). We used a realist method of thematic analysis which involves reporting upon the experiences and meanings – or the “reality” – put forward by participants (Braun and Clarke, 2006). We defined a theme as a patterned response. A ‘patterned response’ was one that was common within a data set (i.e. among children, parents or practitioners) or common across two or more data sets (i.e. children and parents, parents and practitioners etc) (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This allowed us to identify commonalities and differences between data sets (i.e. children, parents and practitioners) – one of the recognised advantages of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Our analysis involved the following steps based on Braun and Clarke's (2006) process for thematic analysis:

Table 1 Location of focus groups.

• becoming familiar with the data: two researchers with postgraduate

qualifications and experience analysing qualitative data listened to the recordings from the focus groups and one of those researchers (with postgraduate and experience analysing qualitative data) analysed the drawings and word association documents produced by the children and the sticky-notes produced by the children and the parents coding interesting features in the data: key quotes, statements, reflections, ideas and concepts from all the documents were identified by both researchers and organised in a spreadsheet according to the group (children, parents and practitioners) and the following categories: o the concept of resilience

Focus group participants

Location

No. of focus groups

Parent and child

NSW Victoria Western Australia

2 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 12

Subtotal Practitioner

•

Subtotal TOTAL

273

ACT NSW Queensland South Australia Victoria Western Australia

Children and Youth Services Review 99 (2019) 270–278

M. McDonald et al.

of personal qualities when discussing resilience, the three most common were: bravery/strength, confidence and forgiveness. An example of the personal quality of bravery was reflected in one child's drawing which featured a person on top of a tall building calling ‘Help’, with the accompanying statement: “resilience is about being strong [and] brave” (Child, NSW). ▪ Persistence and determination: aligning with the common generic definition of resilience, children consistently referred to resilience as not giving up and keeping on going regardless of the situation:

country of birth (n = 34), 79% were born in Australia and 12% were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. 3.8. Practitioner focus groups A total of 107 practitioners participated in the focus groups. There was between 15 and 20 professionals in each focus group. Of those practitioners who provided relevant demographic data about their professional role (n = 93), the most common professional role was a ‘practitioner’ (e.g. psychologist, physiotherapists, nurse, social worker, midwife, therapist, counsellor) (26%), followed by ‘educator/early childhood educator’ (23%), and ‘manager/director’ (22%). Of those practitioners who identified their years of professional experience (n = 90), most (83%) had more than five years of professional experience.

No matter what gets to you, work hard (Child, NSW). Flick it off (Child, Victoria). Get back up (Child, WA). Keep on going (Child, Victoria). Another example of the theme of persistence and determination featured in one child's drawing. The drawing featured a cartoon style story with three separate images featuring girl at a desk. The girl is saying, “think think think” (image 1), “let's try harder” (image 2) and “got it” (image 3). In the final image, a lightbulb hovers above the girl's head (Child, Victoria).

4. Findings 4.1. Child perceptions of resilience When asked to reflect on the issue of resilience through drawings, word associations and sticky-note activity,1 the most common themes children referred to were relationships and communication. Parents emerged as a key source of support for children. One child noted the following as one of the most important ways to build resilience:

4.2. Parents' perceptions of resilience Just as children highlighted the importance of parents to their resilience, parents also viewed themselves as important in this respect. This was most evident in the way parents described themselves as role models for their children's resilience:

Let out the trouble and talk to mum and dad and friends and then it is the next day just think, it's a new day and forget it (Child, Victoria). Children also identified relationships with teachers as important when dealing with challenges:

Parents can role model expected behaviour [and] how to prepare for difficult situations (Parent, NSW).

Things I do to feel okay again… [I] tell the teacher on duty (Child, NSW).

I role model at home…my husband is great …We try to show [our children how to] work through [difficulties] (Parent, NSW).

We talked to the teacher and made a plan (Child, Victoria).

My husband is a professional sportsman and [he] leads by example. He comes home and never fusses about whether they've won or lost (Parent, Victoria).

The themes of relationships and communication were inter-connected for children, and both themes emerged again when children were asked to identify what kind of situations a child might show resilience. They commonly referred to challenges with peers and how they addressed them through subtle and overt forms of communication:

In a similar vein, some parents pointed out the relationship between permissive or ‘indulgent’ parenting and a lack of resilience in children: Kids can't always get their way… No means no… You can't coddle your child because they [will] grow up thinking everything is easy for them (Parent, WA).

You can keep trying to ignore mean people (Child, Victoria). Saying ‘Stop… I don't like it’ (Child, WA). Bullying – tell them to stop (Child, WA).

My mother gave my son an IPad for school. He punched it and it broke. My mother said, ‘Don't worry it's not his fault. I'll just buy him another one’, but I wouldn't let her. It tells him he doesn't have to look after it. He had to wait until I had the money to send it in and get it fixed (Parent, Victoria).

Other common themes that emerged when children were asked to reflect upon resilience were: ▪ Thinking patterns and habits: children saw a link between the way they thought about a situation and how they felt about a situation:

Some parents expressed concern about their child's resilience:

When I lose a game of soccer I remember that I could win next time (Child, NSW).

[It's] hard when you have one parent who is resilient and [another] parent is not. [My] a husband, who is not resilient, freaks out when something has gone wrong. [The] kids copy their dad and also freak out (Parent, Victoria).

However, they also noted that sometimes not thinking about something is beneficial: Don't think about the person that hurt you (Child, WA).

My kids don't show resilience at home - they do at school, but when they're with me, they rely on me too much (Parent, Victoria).

Some children's views about the relationship between thoughts and feelings were remarkably sophisticated, considering their age:

Parents rarely identified the impact of broader contextual factors on children's resilience. They were more likely to focus on their impact, as parents, on their children's resilience. Despite not recognising the impact of broader contextual factors on their children's resilience, there were multiple descriptions of adversity among the parent cohort:

Teach kids that the thoughts they have about anything in life can change how they feel (Child, Victoria). ▪ Personal qualities: participating children referred to a vast range

I was diagnosed with anxiety disorder and… I find the transfer of worry [to my child] really hard. I have a year 7 daughter and I've definitely had to work on it. I've gotten better and need to remember the sky isn't falling

1 This activity involved parents and children using sticky-notes to identify what they believed were the most important ways to build children's resilience (see Appendix A).

274

Children and Youth Services Review 99 (2019) 270–278

M. McDonald et al.

Resilience is a lot about perception - how you see yourself in your culture… and what values your community holds (Practitioner, South Australia).

down (Parent, NSW). There was an unexpected death in the family [and it was] very hard for the children to understand. I talked to them about how to cope with their emotions - it was a hard time and it still is (Parent, WA).

In contrast, context was not a common theme in the parent focus groups. Practitioners also more likely than parents to consider the broader contextual factors that impact upon children's resilience, and less likely to view resilience as primarily an individual attribute of a child:

Last year [my husband] got notice to say he was being retrenched. We got a payout and he was on Centrelink… and then he got another job. In January he was laid off again and we had absolutely no savings and we were trying to live off what Centrelink was giving us and at home… We could either pay the bills and not eat or eat and not pay the bills (Parent, Victoria).

I don't think resilience is necessarily something that resides within you, it's something that's bought about through the social setting (Practitioner, Victoria).

As with the child participants, communication also emerged as a dominant theme among the parents. For example, when asked to consider what families can do to help build children's resilience, parents identified a number of strategies related to communication:

Resilience is environmental and within – like a personal quality – and the [issue] is how [can we] support the environment [and] the internal processes to build that resilience? (Practitioner, ACT). Practitioners also viewed these broader contextual factors as an important aspect of building children's resilience:

Listen to everything - the big things and the little things; listen attentively to what worries them. It's important to listen and observe so we know when they're struggling, they're not coping, and let them know its okay (Parent, WA).

At the end of the day, it comes down to social factors over which people don't have a great deal of control, so what can [we do to] create supportive environments before kids are born so Mums are getting heaps of support. I'm thinking of economic factors, unemployment; what affects parents' ability to raise their kids (Practitioner, WA).

If we talk to [our child] about what's happening, explain it, he can cope a bit better with it. There's never a ‘we'll talk about that later’, if he wants to talk about something then we talk about then and there (Parent, WA). Set aside a bit of time before they go to bed [and ask them], ‘Is everything okay? Is there anything on your mind? Is there anything you want to have a chat about with Mummy or Daddy?’ (Parent, WA).

For kids who come from a more disadvantaged background, they need to trust their school. If they don't trust the school they won't see it as their community. How do you build that sense of belonging so that can be one of the pillars of resilience? That's a big thing (Practitioner, Queensland).

Other strategies that parents identified to help build children's resilience included: providing opportunities for and encouraging problem-solving; helping children identify and manage emotions; and helping children deal with interpersonal conflicts. Parents tended to describe resilience in terms of individual attributes, as their children did. Resilient children were described by parents as having specific qualities or characteristics, such as adaptability and the ability to ‘bounce back’ and deal with difficult and challenging experiences. Just as child participants associated resilience with persistence and determination, parents also viewed resilient children as those who could “move on”, who took things in their stride, and don't ‘melt-down’:

In comparison to parents, the practitioner cohort was also more likely to refer to serious adversity in relation to resilience. Many practitioners used examples of children who had experienced serious adversity to emphasise the importance of context when assessing a child's resilience. One practitioner, for example, noted that a child who has experienced chronic trauma may demonstrate “some level of dysfunction”, but within the context of what they have experienced would be considered remarkably resilient. Another practitioner noted the limitations of resilience when working with a family experiencing severe disadvantage:

Resilient children deal with difficult situations, taking it in their stride – they don't have meltdowns (Parent, Victoria).

For the families that we support, the children are born in adversity. Building resilience [among those children] needs to start with the most basic of needs. If your [child]’s basic needs aren't met, you don't want to hear about resilience… [In those circumstances] we're not focusing on building resilience, we're focusing on keeping [the children] safe, [ensuring] their basic needs being met, and dealing with parents who have their own trauma (Practitioner, Victoria).

[Resilience is] the ability to just move on to the next thing if something has happened (Parent, Victoria). Kids who aren't resilient take everything to heart (Parent, Victoria). 4.3. Practitioners' perceptions of resilience

Another difference between parents and practitioners was how they articulated the relationship between emotions, sensitivity and resilience. Parents described the relationship between resilience and emotions in a black-and-white way; for example, a resilient child is a child who doesn't have ‘melt-downs’ and doesn't ‘take things to heart’. In other words, for parents, there was an association between emotional displays, sensitivity and a lack of resilience. However, practitioners noted that a lack of emotional displays and sensitivity can also be a potential warning sign. When asked to describe the concept of resilience one practitioner stated:

There were some commonalities between parents' and practitioners' understanding of resilience. The basic definition of resilience that practitioners described was similar to that conveyed by parents. Practitioners described resilience as the ability to ‘bounce back’, and the ability to manage, deal with, and process difficult and challenging experiences. However, as practitioners began to explore the concept in greater depth it was clear that their understandings of resilience were more nuanced and complex than parents' understandings. For example, practitioners noted the importance of context when attempting to define resilience and related concepts such as ‘adversity’ and ‘doing well’:

I'm thinking of kids who have really, really terrible things happen to them. They've gone to the point where the same bad things keep happening to them so they just switch off, and that isn't resilience that's denial or dissociation, and that's not a positive mental framework (Practitioner, Victoria).

People's definition of doing well is personally subjective (Practitioner, WA).

Other practitioners made statements that backed up this view:

Adversity is not universal, [it] can mean different things (Practitioner, Queensland).

Some kids might look resilient but it's because they are withdrawn… 275

Children and Youth Services Review 99 (2019) 270–278

M. McDonald et al.

because they can't feel and they don't show emotion (Practitioner, ACT). The children who have experienced trauma find it difficult to identify how they're feeling… The kids who have experienced trauma are disengaged (Practitioner, Victoria).

•

Some kids are in really bad situations and they rock up into your class and you wouldn't know. Does that mean they've got good resilience? Or does it mean they see school as a safe place? Or is it a form of detachment and denial? (Practitioner, WA).

Based on the findings of this study, we identified four major implications for initiatives that aim to build children's resilience, each of which is explored further below.

This is another example of practitioners' complex and nuanced understanding of resilience: from their perspective, resilience is the ability to regulate emotions and the ability to articulate and express feelings. For parents, on the other hand, the expression of feelings and sensitivity by children was often presented as a clear indicator that a child was not resilient. Many practitioners also referred to resilience as something that it is not fixed:

5.1. The importance of educating parents about the factors that influence children's resilience For practitioners, resilience is something that is influenced by multiple factors within a child's environment, including, for example, their social setting and economic factors. This reflects the consensus in the field of resilience about the ‘ecological’ nature of resilience (Shean, 2015). Our findings suggest that this view is not as strong among parents. Although parents in this study recognised the importance of their own role in building children's resilience, they rarely considered contributing factors beyond that (e.g. neighbourhood, community, sociopolitical factors), and tended to view resilience as an individual characteristic of the child. This aligns with the findings of previous research which has also found that parents tend to view resilience as an individual characteristic or trait (Karkkainen et al., 2009; Mataga Tintor, 2013; Miljevic-Ridicki et al., 2017). This difference in perspective between practitioners and parents is to be expected. In their everyday work, practitioners are required to assess children from a range of backgrounds with a diversity of behaviours and issues. This includes children involved in the child protection system, children in out-of-home care, and other children who have experienced significant levels of trauma. Most parents, on the other hand, have a deep understanding of their own child, but are less likely to have the breadth of knowledge of a practitioner who works with a range of children. Parents are likely to be thinking most about their child, simply because of the reality of their everyday life as a parent. There are two key reasons why educating parents about the factors that influence children resilience is important for resilience-building initiatives. Firstly, by emphasizing to parents that resilience is influenced by a range of factors and is not influenced solely by what they do with (or for) their child, practitioners may be able to alleviate the pressure some parents feel about their influence on their child's resilience. This is especially important for parents who are experiencing serious adversity themselves (e.g. mental health difficulties, financial stress, job insecurity) and are concerned about the impact of that adversity on their children – a phenomenon that multiple parents involved in this study described. Just as a shift in focus from the individual child to their environment ensures we're not blaming children for their lack of resilience (as Ungar (2011) claims), so too encouraging parents to recognise the multiple factors that influence children's resilience may reduce the likelihood that they hold themselves solely accountable for how their children fare in the face of adversity. The second reason why educating parents about the factors that influence children resilience is important is that if parents understand that resilience is influenced by multiple factors, they are more likely to support and advocate for policies and initiatives that seek to enhance children's resilience by targeting their environments (e.g. families, schools, communities), rather than just those that target children themselves. In this way, parents could potentially play a key role in filling the gap that Shean (2015) identified between the theory of child resilience – which promotes an ecological approach – and the practice, whereby even the most prominent theorists ‘default’ to proposing childfocused interventions.

Resilience is not static. You don't just reach a point of resilience and that's it. It ebbs and flows (Practitioner, Victoria). Resilience is… a process. Rather than thinking ‘that child is okay’, we actually don't know what tomorrow or the next hour is going to bring, so [resilience is] not just a skill that we develop and that's it. It's an ongoing process [that develops] through the protective factors for mental health and wellbeing (Practitioner, Victoria). Practitioners generally resisted the idea that a child was either resilient or not; reinforcing the idea that resilience is not fixed: Labelling children as having ‘poor resilience’ is problematic; any type of labelling is problematic. If we label a child as non-resilient we're saying no matter what comes the child isn't going to able to deal with it (Practitioner, NSW). Some practitioners noted that parents can encounter judgemental attitudes if they allow their child to take risks: Social media has a huge impact [on the opportunity for children to build resilience]… I think particularly for first time parents trying to navigate what is appropriate exploration and risk taking [they think] ‘I'm not being a good mother if my child falls and bangs their head and I am a bad mother because I didn't stop it’ (Practitioner, Victoria). Parents fear being judged by other people, or [that other people are] going to think they're doing the wrong thing if they let their child take risks (Practitioner, Queensland). 5. Discussion The aim of this paper was to outline the commonalities and differences between children, parents and practitioners in terms of how they understand child resilience, and then examine the implications of these findings for initiatives that aim to build children's resilience. The findings from this study demonstrate that children and parents have common understandings of resilience, however their understandings of resilience differ markedly from practitioners. Apart from a few common areas of agreement – such as the basic definition of resilience and the importance of supportive relationships to child resilience – the different understandings of these two groups (children/parents and practitioners) pertain to a range of issues including:

• the factors that influence children's resilience: compared to practi•

practitioners viewed the relationship between emotionality and child resilience in a more nuanced way; and the characterisation of resilience: when characterising resilience, both parents and children tend to describe coping mechanisms (e.g. talking to parents and teachers, ignoring bullies), whereas practitioners were more likely to view resilience as an ongoing, complex process.

tioners, parents rarely considered the factors beyond their own influence that impact upon a child's resilience (e.g. neighbourhood, community, socio-political factors); the relationship between emotionality and resilience: both children and parents tend to view resilience as emotional fortitude, whereas 276

Children and Youth Services Review 99 (2019) 270–278

M. McDonald et al.

research identified this as a concern. If the general community discourages healthy risk-taking among children, it is clearly more difficult for parents to encourage it among their own children. The fear of being deemed a ‘bad’ parent may be enough to lead parents to err on the side of caution unnecessarily, thereby undermining children's opportunities to take healthy risks. Therefore, there is a need for resilience interventions that educate the broader community about the meaning and importance of “healthy risk-taking” among children. A ‘social ecology’ that facilitates resilience supports healthy risk-taking among children and challenges the judgemental attitudes that discourage it.

5.2. The importance of communicating the aims of resilience interventions to parents and children Practitioners' views of resilience are more nuanced than both parents' and children's views of the concept. Whereas practitioners describe resilience as a process that is dependent upon context, both parents and children tend to describe resilience in terms of individual coping mechanisms. Moreover, both parents and children view emotional expressiveness and sensitivity as indicative of a lack of resilience. Both groups tend to associate resilience with emotional fortitude – the ability to, as one child put it, “flick it off.” The idea that resilience is emotional fortitude reflects the misconceived view that resilience is a form of “rugged individualism” (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2015, p. 7). From a practitioner's perspective, the ability to express and articulate feelings can indicate resilience, rather than a lack of it, as some parents and children implied. The implication of this finding is that some parents' and children's expectations of resilience-building initiatives may differ from the expectations of practitioners. Parents and children may expect resilience initiatives to focus on enhancing emotional fortitude. Practitioners, on the other hand, may be aiming to enhance children's resilience by building their capacity to express and articulate their feelings; something which parents no doubt view as important, but not necessarily important for resilience. When working with children and parents to enhance children's resilience, communicating the aims of that work – and how those aims relate to resilience – is critically important for engaging children and parents. Although parents don't need to have a comprehensive theoretical understanding of resilience, it is important that they understand enough to help support their children's resilience. The same goes for children themselves; it is important they understand that “flicking it off” may not be the best approach for their wellbeing, especially if it involves concealing or repressing how they feel. When working with children who have experienced trauma and their families (e.g. families from refugee backgrounds, families who have experienced domestic and family violence), the message about the relationship between resilience and emotionality is especially important. These children may need additional support to manage and articulate their feelings, worries and concerns, and their families may need additional support to provide children with those opportunities.

6. Limitations This findings from this project are limited by the relatively small number of participants involved in the focus groups. Furthermore, although the participants are from a range of states and territories across Australia, the focus groups were all held in metropolitan areas, thereby excluding the views of children, parents and practitioners living and working in regional, rural and remote areas. Further research could examine perspectives on resilience of a representative sample of children, parents and practitioners incorporating all states and territories and including participants from regional, rural and remote areas. 7. Conclusion Children, parents and practitioners have differing views on child resilience, including what resilience looks like, how it develops, and in what circumstances the concept is relevant. These differing views offer an insight into how we might enhance resilience-building initiatives for children. Educating parents and children about the complex and nuanced nature of resilience appears to be an especially important task. Addressing the broader social and cultural factors that impact upon resilience is also clearly important, especially considering the widespread acknowledgement among researchers and practitioners about the impact of environments upon children's resilience. Acknowledgements Many thanks to the parents, children and practitioners who participated in this research. Thanks to our colleagues at redacted who assisted with data collection. Thanks also to redacted for their feedback on this paper.

5.3. The need to focus on building supportive relationships Regardless of how we define resilience, clearly there is a need for initiatives that help Australian children manage the challenges they will inevitably face in their everyday lives, as well as initiatives that target the subgroup of children who experience serious adversity. Considering the importance of relationships to child resilience, any initiative that facilitates enhanced parent-child relationships, peer relationships and/or relationships between children and educators would appear to be especially beneficial. Research indicates that supportive relationships facilitate children's resilience, especially when they are growing up in disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Hill et al., 2006). Our findings suggest that initiatives that facilitate positive relationships between children and the important people in their lives will be strongly supported by practitioners, parents and children.

Declarations of interest None. Appendix A. Parent and Child Focus Group Questions General discussion about the concept of resilience (parents only)

• What does ‘a resilient child’ mean to you? • Why do you think resilience in our children matters? • Other people have described resilience in the following ways:

5.4. The need to explore attitudes towards risk-taking Resilience experts such as Michael Ungar (2011) and Werner (1989) support the idea that interventions aiming to enhance children's resilience should be target children as well as the people and environments surrounding the child. One of the factors within children's environments that may hinder the facilitation of resilience are community attitudes that discourage healthy risk-taking. It is difficult to say how widespread these attitudes are, however some practitioners in our

•

o Coping with everyday stress or pressure o Coping with more serious or longer difficulties or adversity o Thriving well under any circumstances Do you agree or disagree with these descriptions? How much influence do parents have on children's resilience? Why do you say that?

Activities exploring children's views and perceptions of resilience (children and parents) 277

Children and Youth Services Review 99 (2019) 270–278

M. McDonald et al.

• (Activity) Word association / Drawings

(2018). Resilience in young children: A Delphi study to reach consensus on definitions, measurement and interventions to build resilience. Early Child Development and Care, 1–12. Bell, T., & Romano, E. (2015). Child resilience in out-of-home care: Child welfare worker perspectives. Children and Youth Services Review, 48, 49–59. Beyondblue (2016). Building resilience. https://healthyfamilies.beyondblue.org.au/ healthy-homes/building-resilience. Beyondblue (2018). Parent Engagement Champions. Available at: https://www.aracy. org.au/the-nest-in-action/parent-engagement-champions. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Downey, J. A. (2014). Indispensable insight: Children's perspectives on factors and mechanisms that promote educational resilience. Canadian Journal of Education, 37(1), 46–71. Drapeau, S., Saint-Jacques, M.-C., Lepine, R., Begin, G., & Bernard, M. (2007). Processes that contribute to resilience among youth in foster care. Journal of Adolescence, 30(6), 977–999. Dray, J., Bowman, J., Campbell, E., Freund, M., Wolfenden, L., Hodder, R., ... Wiggers, J. (2017). Systematic review of universal resilience-focused interventions targeting child and adolescent mental health in the school setting. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(10), 813–824. Farrelly, A., Forster, R., & Smith, K. (2014). Building resilience in children and young people. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/ department/resiliencelitreview.pdf. Hill, M., Turner, K., Walker, M., Stafford, A., & Seaman, P. (2006). Children's perspectives on social exclusion and resilience in disadvantaged urban communities. In E. K. M. Tisdall (Ed.). Children, Young People and Social Inclusion: Participation for What? (pp. 39–56). . Hurley, D. J., Martin, L., & Hallberg, R. (2015). From the zone of risk to the zone of resilience: Protecting the resilience of children and practitioners in Argentina, Canada and Ireland. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 6(1), 17–51. Karkkainen, R., Raty, H., & Kasanen, K. (2009). Parents' perceptions of their child's resilience and competencies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 405–419. Khanlou, N., & Wray, R. (2014). A whole community approach to child and youth resilience promotion: A review of the resilience literature. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 64–79. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The Construct of Resilience: A critical Evaluation and guidelines for Future Work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. Mataga-Tintor, A. (2013). Community resilience and the fulfilment of child rights in the family, school and community. Center for. Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(2), 71–91. Miljevic-Ridicki, R., Plantak, K., & Bouillet, D. (2017). Resilience in Preschool Children – The Perspectives of Teachers, parents and Children. International Journal of Emotional Education, 9(2), 31–43. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2015). Supportive Relationships and Active Skill-Building Strengthen the Foundations of Resilience: Working Paper 13. Available at: http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu. Rautiainen, R., Räty, H., & Kasanen, K. (2017). Effort, ability, or difficulties? parents' and teachers' explanations of the malleability of children's competences. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 146–154. Rochat, T., & Hough, A. (2007). Children's views and experiences of resilience enhancing family and community practices. The Child Youth, Family and Social Development Human Sciences Research Council. Available at: http://www.crin.org/en/docs/ Children%20and%20Resilience%20Final.pdf (99 pages) . Shean, M. (2015). Current theories relating to resilience and young people. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. South, R., Jones, F. W., Creith, E., & Simonds, L. M. (2016). Understanding the concept of resilience in relation to look after children: A Delphi survey of perceptions for education, social care and foster care. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 21(2), 178–192. Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry: Mental Health and Social Justice, 81(1), 1–17. Ungar, M. (2013). Resilience, trauma, context, and culture. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 14, 255–266. Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100–110. VicHealth (2015). Improving Mental Wellbeing: Resilience. https://www.vichealth.vic. gov.au/programs-and-projects/resilience. Werner, E. E. (1989). High-risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study from birth to 32 years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 72–81. Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 8. https://doi.org/10. 1186/1477-7525-9-8. Young, C., Tong, A., Nixon, J., Fernando, P., Kalucy, D., Sherriff, S., ... Williamson, A. (2017). Perspectives on childhood resilience among the Aboriginal community: An interview study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 41(4), 405–410.

In groups of two or three, the children are given two sheets of butcher's paper. On the first sheet, they can write down as few or as many words related to resilience as they like (parents may need to assist with writing). Questions for prompting might include “what does resilience mean to you?”, “who is someone you think is resilient?”, and “why is resilience a good thing to have?” The aim is to understand the language children use, so avoid over-explaining the activity and encourage to write down whatever comes to mind. On the second sheet of paper, each group draws an image of a situation in which someone might need to be resilient. Prompts might include “Who's involved in this situation?”, “where are they?”, “what is each person doing?” This activity will help researchers better understand the kind of situations that children think necessitate resilience. Ask children to try to label the feelings in the situation. Labels like ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘upset’ or ‘lonely’ but also others.

• (Activity) Resilience in your own words In pairs, ask the children to think of a situation (real-life or madeup) in which someone has shown or could show resilience. Children can use pictures drawn in the previous activity as stimuli. Encourage them to focus not just on what happened, but on how the person was resilient and why they were able to ‘bounce back’. Ask participants to explain the situation they thought of with the rest of the group/ or with another pair of children. If pairs consist of one adult and one child, encourage the child to explain their idea, so that researchers can take note of the language used by the child.

• (Activity) Ranking exercise Now that participants (both parents and children) have thought about what resilience is and why it's important, they can think about how to build it in young people. With pads of sticky notes, ask each child and parent (in pairs) to write down the three things they think are most important for building resilience (e.g. “family support,” “encouragement,” “positivity,” “friends,” etc). The researcher can then place these sticky notes on a whiteboard, grouping them by general themes, so that the participants can see the overall top three. A final discussion about whether or not children agree with the top three could follow. Exploring parents' ideas about how to enhance children's resilience (parents only)

• Does anyone have any thoughts or feedback on the activities from Part 2? (e.g. observations, reflections, surprises) • (Activity) Real world actions Working in small groups (2–3 people), what are some ‘real world’ things we could do / ways that we could support resilience in kids, particularly before adversity occurs? What might this look like in families, communities and the broader Australian society?

• Does anyone have any final comments, questions or thoughts? References Alvord, M. K., & Grados, J. J. (2005). Enhancing resilience in children: A proactive approach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(3), 238–245. Avdagic, E., Wade, C., McDonald, M., McCormack, D., Dakin, P., Macvean, M., ... Phan, T.

278