4.3 Article

Intersectionality of Resilience: A Strengths-Based Case Study Approach With Indigenous Youth in an Urban Canadian Context

期刊

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 13, 页码 2001-2018

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1049732320940702

关键词

resilience; intersectionality; Indigenous youth; wellness; health; strength-based; urban; Canada; North America; Indigenous people; case study; photovoice; qualitative methods; community-based research; Two-eyed seeing; Indigenous methodologies

资金

  1. Urban Aboriginal Knowledge Network's Partnership Grant through the Social Sciences and Humanities Resarch Council [895-2011-1001]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Resaerch [FRN 130797]
  3. Saskatchewan Prevention Institute
  4. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By bringing together two important areas of contemporary health research-resilience among Indigenous youth and intersectionality theory-this study advances anintersectionality of resilienceframework that exposes intersecting forms of oppression within inner city urban contexts, while also critically reframing intersectionality to include strength-based perspectives of overlapping individual, social, and structural resilience-promoting processes. Drawing on Indigenous methodologies, a two-eyed seeing approach, and Stake's case study methodology involving multiple data sources (i.e., four sharing circles, 38 conversational interviews, four rounds of photovoice, and naturalistic interactions that occurred with 28 youth over an entire year), this qualitative study outlines three intersecting processes that facilitate youth resilience and wellness in various ways: (a) strengthening cultural identity and family connections; (b) engagement in social groups and service to self and community; and (c) practices of the arts and a positive outlook. In the end, implications for research, clinical practice, and health or community interventions are also discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据