Join for Free
Log In

artes y humanidades
Negocios
Ciencias de la Computación
Ciencia de Datos
Tecnología de información
salud
Matemáticas y Lógica
Desarrollo Personal
Ciencias Físicas e Ingeniería
Ciencias sociales
Aprendizaje de un idioma
Grados
Certificados

Explorar todo lo que Coursera tiene para ofrecer

Explorar
Buscar
For Enterprise
Inicia Sesión
Únete de forma gratuita

6.4 Enduring Controversies

Loading...

Resilience in Children Exposed to Trauma, Disaster and War: Global Perspectives

Universidad de Minnesota

4.8 (129 calificaciones) | 10K estudiantes inscritos

How do children overcome hazardous experiences to succeed in life? What can be done to protect young people at risk from trauma, war, disasters, and other adversities? Learn about the importance of fostering resilience in children at risk. During this course, participants will: learn how trauma can affect children and the systems they depend on, gain insight into core concepts, research methods and lessons learned in last 50 years of resilience research, learn how research is being applied in the real world through interventions that promote resilience, and engage in discussions with others who are working with children at risk around the world Participants are welcome to take the MOOC at no cost or to register for a Course Certificate ($49). Those who register and earn a Course Certificate from Coursera also are eligible to sign up for continuing education clock hours through the University of Minnesota. Participants can earn 10 clock hours of continuing education credit (added cost $99) from the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota. Go here http://z.umn.edu/1a5q to register for continuing education clock hours for completing this course.

Revisiones

4.8 (129 calificaciones)

5 stars
107 ratings
4 stars
18 ratings
3 stars
3 ratings
2 stars
1 ratings

GA

May 19, 2019

This is a fantastic course! Extremely interesting material superbly delivered! Inspiring, useful and thought provoking. Would definitely recommend.

CJ

Sep 16, 2017

Diverse and insightful content, compelling readings, and valuable tools and frameworks - thoroughly absorbing and worthwhile.

De la lección

Week 6: A Resilience Framework for Action, Enduring Controversies, and New Horizons in the Study of Resilience

In video lectures this final week of the course, Professor Masten presents a general resilience framework for designing interventions and programs to promote resilience. She also discusses enduring controversies in the study of resilience and new frontiers, including the neurobiology of resilience and growing research on the role of culture in resilience. The course concludes with highlights about growing global work on resilience and final “take home” messages from the course.

6.1 Resilience in Action: Overview4:50

6.2 A Framework for Action8:59

6.3 Strategies and Strategic Action11:55

6.4 Enduring Controversies11:37

6.5 Cautionary Notes7:33

6.6 New Horizons in Neurobiology11:57

6.7 New Horizons in Culture and Society9:32

6.8 Think Globally4:50

6.9 Course Wrapup and Acknowledgments8:18

Optional video: Interview with Dante Cicchetti24:03

Optional video: Interview with Michael Rutter17:54

Impartido por:

Ann S. Masten, Ph.D., LP
Regents Professor, Irving B. Harris Professor of Child Development

Transcripción

Today I'm going to talk about enduring controversies in

research on resilience and children.

As in any field of science, over the years, controversies develop.

I think that's a sign of science that's maturing.

And I want to share some of the most enduring controversies in

this field of research with you.

One, is this fundamental question: is resilience a trait?

This has come up over, over the whole five decades of science and resilience.

And I would answer this question emphatically no.

But it does keep coming up.

I think there are individual differences in the personality and assets

that people have that do matter, but there's not single trait of resilience.

There's just no such thing.

And resilience involves so many interactions of different systems,

both within the child and in the environment.

And people encounter different situations, so

it's not surprising that there would not be a single trait for resilience.

And of course some of the most powerful adaptive systems we've seen that

give people their capacity for

positive adaptation aren't even in the person at all.

They're in relationships or in the family or in the community.

I also think that this notion can end up blaming the victim.

The victim of adversity in the sense that people say well,

what's the matter with this person?

How come they're not showing resilience?

As if, they don't have the right stuff in some sense.

So I think this is not a good idea, and I would argue that

resilience never has been a trade and really isn't a single trade, and

I think it's time we move on from this controversy.

Another enduring controversy has asked this question: is

resilience more than a positive framing of risk and vulnerability?

In other words,

is this just a new word for something we've already been paying attention to?

Or is there something important and value added about the concept of resilience.

And I would answer this question: is there value added?

Yes, because I think it really has made a difference in the focus of both science

and intervention to bring attention to adaptive processes, to positive outcomes.

And I think also that the, a resilience approach has emphasized the positive

goals and strategies in ways that have a great deal of appeal,

and motivate many stakeholders including young people themselves.

Another enduring controversy has been the question of whether there is

a price for resilience.

Is there some kind of price to pay for resilience?

And this actually have several different meanings, and

my answer to this would vary depending on what it means.

One way you could think about this, is that terrible experience can leave scars.

And that certainly appears to be the case.

Both physical scars and psychological scars from enduring adversity.

And we saw the girl in the picture.

She, has, you know, who experienced the burns from Napalm.

She has physical scars of this experience, and

I imagine it had profound effects on her psychologically as well.

She's a resilient person and I, but I would describe the,

the impact in terms of the price, that would be the price of the adversity.

I wouldn't think about that as the price of the resilience.

Another way people look at this, is to think about trade-offs.

Sometimes to survive in the short run,

you have to change in ways that may not be adaptive in the long run.

So, the strategies you use to survive at one point in development or in

one domain of your life, may not work very well later on or in a different domain.

And I think a good example of that is when you have children who

live in a very violent or dangerous home or community, and

they learn survival skills that are self protective in that environment.

But those very same skills may not work when they

go to a safe learning environment like a skill.

And they may have to learn new, different strategies for

succeeding in school compared to surviving on the street.

And sometimes children have to do these things both at the same time.

The third meaning of a price for

resilience truly is a price that one could pay, in the sense that

positive achievements could exact a cost in terms of the effort or strain required,

and the energy required to be successful in a very adverse situation.

For example, to be successful when you face a lot of discrimination.

To be successful when you struggle everyday to

overcome the barriers of poverty in order to succeed in school.

And there has been some evidence in the literature over the years that

there is this kind of, maybe this kind of price.

I think we still are doing research on this question.

But in the study on the Children of Kauai by Emmy Werner and

her colleagues, there was some indication that some of

the most resilient young people who grew up on the island of Kauai and

overcame childhood adversity, developed some health problems in adulthood

that may have been related to the stress they endured in earlier on in childhood.

Another interesting enduring controversy concerns the question of definition.

Who should define positive adaptation when you think about resilience?

And we've talked about this before.

Sometimes researchers decide the criteria when you did interviews,

you thought about the criteria.

And sometimes, people make different decisions.

They, and scientists or in case studies,

people, you know, use different criteria to define resilience.

So, for example, some people think it's important to consider happiness,

how you're doing on the inside, when you think about resilience.

Other investigators pay less attention to how happy you are and

more attention to whether you're succeeding in the developmental tasks that

you're supposed to be doing at a given age, like doing well in school or

doing well at work or taking care of your family.

That sort of thing.

And sometimes it's the case that there's a difference of opinion

between a family and a school district in what children should be doing.

So a, a school may use a criterion for what is successful.

And the families of some of the children may disagree with that.

Some families may not think it's important to succeed in

the ways that school teachers want to see the children succeed.

So there can be a conflict between the culture at home and

the culture at school in defining what is good, good outcomes for children.

And there have been, there can be debates about this.

And I think many of the issues we see in resilience are trying to work out and

resolve some of these differences when the goals of society or

school or family or culture are in some sort of conflict.

And it's important to work those out, and

to think about it when we're doing interventions.

Another controversy has centered on the question of time limits on resilience.

And some people who've written about theories of resilience, or

investigators have defined resilience in the short term,

like in the event of an acute crisis are people doing well quickly?

Others have taken a more long-term view that even if it takes you decades to get

on the right road to recovery, that it still is a form of resilience,

just a different long-term pattern.

And this question is interesting.

I, I usually favor the idea that it doesn't matter how

long it takes if you get there, then I think of that as a form of resilience and

I think it does sometimes take a long time to recover from really devastating, you

know, disasters, or from a childhood where you had to overcome a lot of adversity.

And I think that when you see people overcome these kind of difficulties,

even though it takes a long time, I would consider that a form of resilience.

But not everybody would agree with me.

They would want to give that a different kind of name.

Finally, I want to note that as new science emerges, we sometimes

see new forms of old controversies because we've learned something new.

And here's a couple of examples.

We are seeing the trait controversy re-emerge in the study of the genetics and

of resilience.

People are asking the question, are there genes for resilience?

Which is many ways is similar to the question of

whether there's a trait for resilience.

And I think we're going to struggle again with this controversy,

as we try to figure out exactly how genes matter.

And we've already seen and begin to learn,

began to learn that genes interact with many other things in our experience, and

what's important is the expression of genes and their role in resilience.

But we're going to see this controversy work its way through another whole

group of findings.

And finally, we're seeing the idea of cost, the cost of

resilience revisited as we learn more about the neurobiology of stress, and

what's called alastatic load, which we've heard about already.

And people raise this interesting and provocative question.

This is the title of an article which you can look up.

Is resilience only skin deep?

This is getting at the idea that you may on the outside look very competent and

successful, but on the inside you may see the effects of the stress on

the body in ways that you can measure now that we didn't used to be able to measure.

And I'll just leave it there.

And we will take a closer look at some of the new findings in the neurobiology of

resilience shortly in the course.

Explora nuestro catálogo

Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.

Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

Descargar en la App Store

Consíguelo en Google Play

Coursera
Acerca de
Liderazgo
Empleo
Catálogo
Certificados
Certificados MasterTrack™
Grados
For Enterprise
For Government

Comunidad
Learners
Partners
Developers
Beta Testers
Translators

Conectar
Blog
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram
Youtube
Blog de Tecnología

Más
Términos
Privacidad
Ayuda
Accesibilidad
Prensa
Contacto
Directorio
Afiliados