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.

Objective To investigate whether children born very preterm, moderate-late preterm, and term differ in their average level and individual-difference stability in language performance over time. Study design Language was assessed at 5 and 20 months, and 4, 6, and 8 years of age in 204 very preterm (< 32 weeks gestation), 276 moderate-late preterm (32–36 weeks gestation), and 268 term (37–41 weeks gestation) children from the Bavarian Longitudinal Study. Results Very preterm children consistently performed worse than term-born children, and moderate-late preterm children scored in between. Language performance was stable from 5 months through 8 years in all gestation groups combined, and stability increased between each succeeding wave. Stability was stronger between 5 months and 4 years in very preterm than moderate-late preterm and term groups, but this differential stability attenuated when covariates (child nonverbal intelligence and family socioeconomic status) were controlled. Conclusions Preterm children, even moderate-late preterm, are at risk for poorer language performance than term-born children. Because individual differences in language performance are increasingly stable from 20 months to 8 years in all gestation groups, pediatricians who attend to preterm children and observe language delays should refer them to language intervention at the earliest age seen.

VP/VLBW birth poses an important risk for a global withdrawn personality, as indicated by being less socially engaged (introversion), low in taking risks, poor in communication (autistic features) and easily worried (neuroticism). This profile might help to explain the social difficulties VP/VLBW individuals experience in adult roles, such as in peer/partner relationships and career.

A third of VP/VLBW children showed disorganised attachment. Underlying neurodevelopmental problems associated with VP/VLBW birth appear to be a common pathway to a range of social relationship problems in this group. Clinicians should be aware that disorganised attachment and relationship problems in VP/VLBW infants are frequent despite sensitive parenting.

While mixed methods research is increasingly established as a methodological approach, researchers still struggle with boundaries arising from commitments to different methods and paradigms, and from attention to social justice. Combining two lines of work—social learning theory and the Imagine Program at the University of Brighton—we present an evaluation framework that was used to integrate the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in the program’s social interventions. We explore how this “value-creation framework” acts as a boundary object across “boundaries of practice,” specifically across quantitative and qualitative methods, philosophical paradigms, and participant perspectives. We argue that the framework’s focus on cycles of value creation provided the Imagine Program with a shared language for negotiating interpretation and action across those boundaries.