3 deadly sins of resilience research
Three “deadly sins of resilience research.” One of these deadly sins is to be conceptually hazy with respect to how we articulate resilience in settings that are different from our own. A second deadly sin is to be empirically light with respect to actively seeking evidence on resilience in a broad range of contexts—for children and adults, veterans and civilians, western and non-western societies. And the third sin is to be methodologically lame with respect to how we measure resilience, especially in places where cultural goals and cultural resources are less familiar to us. When we are conceptually hazy, empirically light, and methodologically lame, we fall prey to three deadly sins in resilience research (Panter-Brick & Leckman, 2013).