Walsh’s resilience framework

Walsh (2003) designed a resilience framework in order to provide a conceptual map in which key resilience processes (described as resilience factors by McCubbin et al. (1997) – described in Section 2.1.2) are grouped into three domains, i.e. belief systems, organisational

patterns and communication/problem solving. Although similar to the work of McCubbin and McCubbin (1996), Walsh’s framework provides a slightly different view with a more dynamic focus on resilience processes, as opposed to a description of factors that could be interpreted as characteristics of resilient families (and not of the actual processes that make them resilient). This difference may seem semantic, even bordering on pedantic, but does offer a different philosophy of resilience with a subsequent broader conceptual appreciation of the phenomenon itself. Reference to the corresponding factors of McCubbin and McCubbin (1996) will be made throughout the discussion of Walsh’s resilience framework. Note, however, that a major difference emerges through the different focus of Walsh on processes and McCubbin and McCubbin on factors, in the sense that Walsh appears not to consider the effects of individual hardiness on family resilience (for which evidence is presented in the results of the current study).

2.1.4.1 Belief systems

As mentioned, Walsh (2003) divides the resilience framework into three domains that encapsulate family resilience. These are belief systems, organisational patterns and communication/problem solving. Belief systems have a strong influence on how a stressor is interpreted, which in turn influences the resultant reaction to the posed threat. The belief system domain can be related to the schema/appraisal part of the Resiliency Model discussed in detail in Section 2.2. According to Walsh, belief systems incorporate processes such as making meaning of adversity, developing a positive outlook and maintaining a sense of spirituality and transcendence. Walsh focuses on the value and strength of relationships for making meaning of adversity and for coping. This view is essentially opposed to a view of a hardy individual, incorporated in the hardiness key resilience factor of McCubbin et al.

(1997). However, Walsh does relate the process of making meaning to Antonovsky and Sourani’s (1988) sense of coherence construct, which is incorporated into the description of the hardiness factor of McCubbin et al. (1997). It can, however, be conceded that the process

of how people make meaning of adversity will be influenced by the strength of their relationships with others, as well as by their innate strengths or hardiness; the latter which has a subsequent influence on the outcome of family resilience. A second process identified by Walsh in the belief system domain is that of maintaining a positive outlook, in relation to which she wrote extensively about the significance of the presence of hope and an optimistic bias. Needless to say, this relates to McCubbin et al.’s (1997) key resilience factor of hope.

The presence of Seligman’s concept of learned optimism (cited in Sarafino, 2006) holds significant value for understanding that which makes or contributes to resilience. In this light Sarafino considered the influence of Seligman’s earlier concept of learned helplessness, which describes the effects of repeated setbacks and failures leading to subjects giving up the struggle against the onslaught of stressors. This effect is addressed by the pile-up of stressors aspect of the Resiliency Model of McCubbin and McCubbin (1996).

Walsh identified a third process in the belief systems domain, namely transcendence and spirituality, which relates to McCubbin et al.’s (1997) spirituality factor. Whether seen as a factor or process, the importance of religious rituals, belief in a higher power, inspiration and transcendence of the earthly realm of suffering for resilient outcomes in the face of adversity seems to have good support in the literature (Durie, 1994; Greeff & Loubser, 2008;

McCubbin et al., 1997; Tarakeshwar, Kahn, & Sikkema, 2006; Walsh, 2003). The effects of congregational support as a form of social support and the effects of faith on psychoneuroimmunology are not to be denied (Sarafino, 2006). Walsh (2003) further pointed to a unique resilience phenomenon in humans of blaming failure to overcome adversity on

“insufficient spiritual piety” (p. 410).

2.1.4.2 Organisational patterns

Under the second resilience domain, of family organisational patterns, Walsh (2003) groups together three resilience processes, namely flexibility, connectedness and social and economic

resources. Flexibility was described as a resilience factor by McCubbin et al. (1997). Walsh developed this concept further by incorporating a view of flexibility as descriptive of the nature of resilience of bouncing back or even bouncing forward in recovery from setbacks. As such, Walsh confirmed that “firm yet flexible authoritative leadership is most effective for family functioning and the well-being of children” (p. 411). Connectedness, as the second resilience process under the organisation domain of Walsh’s resilience framework, resonates with McCubbin et al.’s (1997) family time and routine resilience factor, and with the equality factor (equal importance of all members and of their views). Walsh supports the importance of cohesion, mutual support and collaboration and commitment, which interestingly is encapsulated and operationalised in McCubbin et al.’s (1997) family time and routines factor.

It is interesting in the sense that McCubbin et al.’s (1997) concept is more descriptive of processes than of characteristics, an aspect that is usually associated with Walsh’s work.

Connectedness refers to strength in a team approach to challenges. A third resilience process under the organisational domain was identified by Walsh (2003) as the use of social and economic resources as manifest in extended families, community resources and financial or economic aspects. This process mirrors McCubbin et al.’s (1997) social support key resilience factor.

2.1.4.3 Communication/problem solving

Walsh (2003) identifies clarity, open emotional expression and collaborative problem solving as resilience processes that constitute the third domain of her family resilience framework.

Clarity of information brings about a dissipation of anxiety caused by a lack of knowledge, especially in the case of stigma such as suicide (Walsh), or in the case of the theme of the present investigation - the effects of HIV/AIDS on family resilience. All three processes of clarity, open emotional expression and collaborative problem-solving processes in the third domain of Walsh’s resilience framework relate to McCubbin et al.’s (1997) family problem-solving communication factor, as well as to the truthful resilience factor. Walsh points to the

importance of open emotional expression, involving tolerance for differences, especially gender differences, and an ability to share a wide range of emotions (also descriptive of the equality factor of McCubbin et al., 1997). The importance of humour for the development of resilience was also indicated. Collaborative problem solving and conflict management, through shared decision making based on fairness, tend to make families more resourceful, as pointed out by Walsh (2003), who says that joint family effort contributes to a more proactive approach to a future onslaught of stressors. A common thread between the work of Walsh (2003) and McCubbin et al. (1997) appears to exist within the associated family problem-solving communication factor of McCubbin et al. (1997), in that the problem-problem-solving communication incorporates and describes processes in, rather than characteristics of, resilient families.

Leading to a definition of resilience, and in particular of family resilience, that incorporates McCubbin et al.’s (1997) key resilience factors (discussed in Section 2.1.2) and Walsh’s (2003) family resilience processes as encapsulated in the family resilience framework (discussed in Section 2.1.3), Walsh suggests that “families must find their own pathways through adversity that fit their situation, their cultural orientation, and their personal strengths and resources” (p. 415). This view supports the reason for including a qualitative aspect in the current investigation (discussed in Chapter 5, research method) in order to contribute to an understanding of the multivariate nature of family resilience.