Our latest working paper presents a scoping review concerning how family resilience and social resilience is captured in the empirical literature. The concept of resilience has gained significant prominence in both familial and social contexts across academic and policy discussions in recent times, however the interplay and relation between these two have not yet been documented. This scoping review addresses this gap by analysing 250 articles published between 1998 and 2023.
While both perspectives study individuals’ resilience, the emphasis in family resilience is on families, whereas social resilience studies focus more on communities and societies. Both perspectives emphasise the centrality of risks in defining resilience, yet family resilience scholarship seeks solutions within the family, while social resilience highlights community dynamics. Additionally, family resilience studies explore topics related to family-specific risks and resources, while social resilience studies examine external risks and resources.
In sum, the family resilience scholarship follows the clinical tradition of resilience literature, viewing families as a separate entity that is resourceful and agentic. Socioeconomic risks are recurrent themes in social resilience, but not in the family resilience literature.
Understanding resilience through the lens of family inequalities in socioeconomic contexts can help bridge these two perspectives. Incorporating factors such as labour market dynamics, family transitions, and educational attainment into definitions of risks, outcomes, and explanatory factors of resilience can enhance this integration. This gives additional motivation for the rEUsilience project which speaks to the conclusions of this scoping review in the approach that it takes. The full working paper can be read here.
To complement this working paper, we also have produced a reflective piece for our Thinking about Resilience series “Bridging the Literatures of Family and Social Resilience: Reflecting on a Scoping Review”. As part of these reflections, the authors provide key pointers for what policymaking can gain from bringing together these two branches of the resilience literature. These centre on the need for resilience to reflect how families navigate adversity within a context of structural inequalities, rather than placing undue responsibility on families themselves. Read further key insights here.