Towards a dynamic interactive model of resilience (DIMoR) for education and learning contexts

Shafi, Adeela ahmed; Templeton, Sian; Middleton, Tristan; Millican, Richard; Vare, Paul; Pritchard, R. A.; Hatley, Jenny

doi:10.1080/13632752.2020.1771923

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite a growing interest in either resiliency-trait or resilience-state research across various contexts and fields of psychology, there is still no commonly accepted definition of resiliency/e. This is evident in a plethora of concept analyses (including theoretical, empirical, contextual, and interdisciplinary reviews) spanning the last two decades (see Aburn et al, 2016; Ahern et al, 2008; Ahmed Shafi et al, 2020; Atkinson et al, 2009; Bonanno et al, 2015; Lou et al, 2018; Luthar et al, 2000; Pooley & Cohen, 2010; Sanderson & Brewer, 2017; Schultze-Lutter et al, 2016; Southwick et al, 2014; Windle, 2011; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012). As Aburn et al (2016) concluded: “The most significant finding of the review was that there is no universal definition of resilience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neither Resiliency-Trait nor Resilience-State: Transactional Resiliency/e

Kuldas

Foody

2021

Youth & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1970s, a proliferation of research and concept analysis of resiliency/e has attempted to clarify whether it is a trait or a state. Based on this dualistic approach, studies have either operationalized “resiliency” as a personality trait or “resilience” as a dynamic state. The present review of the concept argues that the trait-state dualism is likely to be a conceptual fallacy, one fundamental reason for the lack of consensus. To facilitate and build consensus, the present conceptual review calls for a transactional approach instead of the dualistic approach to the definition.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neither Resiliency-Trait nor Resilience-State: Transactional Resiliency/e

Kuldas

Foody

2021

Youth & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reflecting on the data through the lens of the DIMoR leads to key reminders about the nature of resilience. Our findings demonstrate that resilience is not a static, in-person trait but something that changes as a result of circumstances and reactions to those circumstances (ahmed Shafi et al, 2020). Consequently, it is important to be mindful that we should not take resilience for granted and recognise that individuals who appear to be resilient in certain contexts may not be in others as circumstances change.…”

Section: What Does the Dimor Tell Us About Resilience Of University S...mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Support for this adaptive capacity can originate within individuals, from their more proximal contexts of family and institutions of which they are part or from more distal influences such as government and policy. The Dynamic Interactive Model of Resilience (DIMoR) proposed by ahmed Shafi et al (2020), where resilience is recognised as an adaptive capacity within a scaled systems context, provides a useful lens through which to view, analyse and interpret the resilience of systems (Figure 1). As Figure 1 demonstrates, the adaptations that universities and their staff had to make as a result of the pandemic can be considered protective or risk factors for the individual (or the system in which the individual is situated), influencing their vulnerabilities and invulnerabilities (ahmed Shafi et al, 2020).…”

Section: Role Of Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In line with dynamic conceptualisations of resilience (ahmed Shafi et al, 2020;Maitland & Glazzard, 2022), it is important to note that out of challenge and adversity, resilience can emerge. This is demonstrated by the research of Müller et al (2021), whose participants described taking risks as a result of the speed of movement to a changing pedagogical approach demanded by the pandemic.…”

Section: Role Of Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the impact of disruption on university staff resilience using the dynamic interactive model of resilience

2023

JALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The unanticipated changes in Higher Education settings brought about as a result of COVID-19 resulted in a range of personal, pedagogical and organisational challenges. This paper reports on research undertaken within a university in South West England, exploring how the pandemic impacted the working practices of academic and professional staff, the implications of those changes and the factors the respondents interpreted as influencing their resilience.A mixed methods approach was adopted whereby data were gathered from 159 academic and professional staff members using an online survey. Nine respondents were then individually interviewed. The data were analysed using the Dynamic Interactive Model of Resilience (DIMoR) in order to explore protective and risk factors from the various systems surrounding the respondents, alongside their more personal vulnerabilities/invulnerabilities.The results highlight the importance of considering individual and wider contexts when analysing the potential for resilience to emerge in times of disruption. The significance of movement of proximal and distal influences depending on the individual and their context also emerged, offering implications for university leaders to consider in supporting staff within their institutions. The value of the DIMoR is discussed as a lens for analysis to support understanding and future action.

show abstract

“…However, the systemic view of resilience calls into question many of the assumptions that underpin such interpretations. Interactive models emphasise reciprocal effects, for example between individual agency and the wider social system (Ahmed Shafi, 2020). Such approaches highlight the need to explore how person-situation (internal-external) influences interact to shape the way resilience changes over time, and the importance of factoring both in when designing any intervention to strengthen people’s resilience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading under pressure: a contextualised development approach

Flint-Taylor,

Davda

2024

JMD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe study’s aim was to design and test a leadership development approach using blended learning, to equip leaders for strengthening their own resilience and that of their teams.Design/methodology/approachA contextualised leadership development intervention was produced and evaluated following the principles of design-based research. Participants were from three organisations that work internationally to address the impact of economic disadvantage. Initial research used the behavioural event interview technique. Online assessment incorporated measures of situational judgement, emotion recognition and attributional style. Validity measures were multi-rater feedback (criterion), and NEO-PI 3 (construct). Individual feedback and a simulation-based peer workshop were followed by a four-to-six month period of experience-driven development and a final peer workshop for consolidating and evaluating learning outcomes.FindingsThe online assessment was a valid measure of leaders’ personal resilience resources and their resilience-building capability. Overall, the intervention improved participants’ understanding of, and engagement with, the processes of strengthening individual and collective (team) resilience.Research limitations/implicationsThe target sample size for the study was relatively small, to ensure it would be practical to replicate the approach when designing similar interventions for a senior leadership population in other contexts. Significant results provided robust evidence for the validity of the assessment approach. Findings for the workshops and experience-driven development phase were more tentative, but the value of the design iterations was clearly demonstrated.Practical implicationsThe leadership development approach is suitable for application in other organisations, if similar principles are followed to produce and evaluate materials relevant to each broad sector context. Roll-out is cost-effective, with relatively few hours of blended or virtual delivery supporting experience-driven learning.Social implicationsThe impact leaders have on the wellbeing of those who report to them is well established, but less has been done to develop and formally evaluate practical, cost-effective interventions to improve this impact. The approach validated in this study can be applied more widely to benefit employee wellbeing as well as performance.Originality/valueThe study developed and evaluated a new approach to preparing leaders for the challenge of building team resilience, an aspect of leadership capability that has been given relatively little attention to date.

show abstract

Towards a dynamic interactive model of resilience (DIMoR) for education and learning contexts

Abstract: and Hatley, Jenny (2020) Towards a dynamic interactive model of resilience (DIMoR) for education and learning contexts. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 25 (2). pp. 183-198.

Cited by 22 publications

References 28 publications

Neither Resiliency-Trait nor Resilience-State: Transactional Resiliency/e

Neither Resiliency-Trait nor Resilience-State: Transactional Resiliency/e

Exploring the impact of disruption on university staff resilience using the dynamic interactive model of resilience

Leading under pressure: a contextualised development approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About