The concept of resilience has evolved, from an individual-level characteristic to a wider ecological notion that takes into account broader person-environment interactions, generating an increased interest in health and well-being research, practice and policy. At the same time, the research and policy-based attempts to build resilience are increasingly under attack for responsibilizing individuals and maintaining, rather than challenging, the inequitable structure of society. When adversities faced by children and young people result from embedded inequality and social disadvantage, resilience-based knowledge has the potential to influence the wider adversity context. Therefore, it is vital that conceptualizations of resilience encompass this potential for marginalized people to challenge and transform aspects of their adversity, without holding them responsible for the barriers they face. This article outlines and provides examples from an approach that we are taking in our research and practice, which we have called Boingboing resilience. We argue that it is possible to bring resilience research and practice together with a social justice approach, giving equal and simultaneous attention to individuals and to the wider system. To achieve this goal, we suggest future research should have a co-produced and inclusive research design that overcomes the dilemma of agency and responsibility, contains a socially transformative element, and has the potential to empower children, young people, and families.

No abstract

International research and policy interest in resilience has increased enormously during the last decade. Resilience is now considered to be a valuable asset or resource with which to promote health and well-being and forms part of a broader trend towards strength based as opposed to deficit models of health. And while there is a developing critique of resilience's conceptual limits and normative assumptions, to date there is less discussion of the subject underpinning these notions, nor related issues of subjectivity, identity or the body. Our aim in this article is to begin to address this gap. We do so by re-examining the subject within two established narratives of resilience, as 'found' and 'made'. We then explore the potential of a third narrative, which we term resilience 'unfinished'. This latter story is informed by feminist poststructural understandings of the subject, which in turn, resonate with recently articulated understandings of an emerging psychosocial subject and the contribution of psychoanalysis to these debates. We then consider the potential value of this poststructural, performative and embodied psychosocial subject and discuss the implications for resilience theory, practice and research.

Obesity is now commonly recognised to be a significant public health issue worldwide with its increasing prevalence frequently described as a global epidemic. In the United Kingdom, primary care nurses are responsible for weight management through the provision of healthy eating advice and support with lifestyle change. However, nurses themselves are not immune to the persistent and pervasive global levels of weight gain. Drawing on a Gadamerian informed phenomenological study of female primary care nurses in England, this paper considers the complex gendered understandings and experiences of being overweight, and of food and eating. The nurses' emotional and injurious experiences of being large is found to be capable of producing embodied caring practices, involving a fusion of horizons with patients over how it feels to inhabit a large body. Yet, even though subjected to similar derogatory stereotypes as patients, they simultaneously reinforce the dominant and damaging individualising psychopathology inherent to anti-obesity discourses. This suggests an urgent need to expose and challenge harmful discourses surrounding women's body size and weight in order to avoid nursing practices that unthinkingly reproduce culturally dominant and gendered understandings of weight, body size, food and eating.

Over the past decade different approaches to mobilising knowledge inCommunity2University Partnership (CUP) contexts have emerged in the UK. Despite this,detailed accounts of the intricate texture of these approaches, enabling others to replicate orlearn from them, are lacking. This paper adds to the literature which begins to address thisgap. The case considered here concentrates on one particular approach to knowledgemobilisation (KM) developed in the UK context. It provides an account of the authors’involvement in applying the concept, and practical lessons from a community of practice(CoP) approach, to developing knowledge exchange (KE) between academics, parents andpractitioners. The authors’ approach to KM explicitly attempts to combat power differentialsbetween academics and community partners, and problematises knowledge powerhierarchies. The paper explores the CoP concept and critically investigates key elements ofrelevance to developing KE in the CUP context. Specific themes addressed are those ofpower, participation and working across boundaries by CoP members with very differentsubject positions and knowledge capitals. The paper concludes that CoPs can be a usefulmechanism for KM, but have many limitations depending on the specific context in whichKM is being undertaken