4.1 Article

Toward a Culturally and Contextually Sensitive Understanding of Resilience: Privileging the Voices of Black, South African Young People

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 635-670

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0743558415600072

关键词

Black; resilience processes; youth; rural; social justice; South Africa; visual methods

资金

  1. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada [104518-015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extant theories of resilience, or the process of adjusting well to adversity, privilege the voices of minority-world young people. Consequently, the resilience of marginalized, majority-world youth is imperfectly understood, and majority-world social ecologies struggle to facilitate resilience in ways that respect the insights of majority-world youth and their cultural and contextual positioning. Accordingly, this article makes audible, as it were, the voices of 181 rural, Black, South African adolescents with the purpose of explicating which resilience-supporting processes characterize their positive adjustment to disadvantaged life-worlds, and how contextual and cultural realities shape such processes. Deductive and inductive analyses of a narrative and visual data set, generated in the qualitative phase of an explanatory mixed-methods study, revealed that universally occurring resilience-supporting mechanisms inform positive adjustment. Importantly, which mechanisms these youth prioritized, and the form these mechanisms take, are shaped by contextual realities of absent men and commonplace suffering, and a cultural reality of strong women, human and spiritual care, and valorization of education. Attention to these adolescents' voices not only prompts specific, culturally and contextually relevant leverage points for resilience but also reinforces the importance of attending to young people's preferred pathways of resilience in order to understand and champion resilience in socially just ways.

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

4.1
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