ARTICLES

 

A scoping review of research on family resilience in South Africa: What is known and what are the gaps?

 

 

Adrian D. van Breda^I; Judith M. Reynolds^II

^IUniversity of Johannesburg, Department of Social Work and Community Development, Johannesburg, South Africa. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9984-9180 avanbreda@uj.ac.za
^IIRhodes University, Centre for Higher Education, Research, Learning and Teaching, Makhanda, South Africa. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4475-1442 j.reynolds@ru.ac.za

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

Families are a central building block of society. The social work profession has always been invested in strengthening family life, and one of the ways this can be done is by building family resilience. South African social workers should base their work with families on solid research on family resilience and conduct some of this research themselves. The study aimed to answer the question: What is known about the research on family resilience in South Africa? The answers to this question would aid social workers and people from other disciplines to conduct their own research on this important topic to fill gaps identified in the review. Following the PRISMA guidelines, the authors conducted a scoping review of 251 publications in South Africa on family resilience between 2004 and 2023, generating 59 eligible journal articles, theses or dissertations. Most studies were conducted by psychologists and only four by social workers. Although numerous risks are addressed, several risks important for social work have not been studied, e.g. fostering, teenage pregnancy and family reunification. Family resilience is conceptualised as an intrafamilial process in nine out of ten studies - few focus on the family's social ecology. Social workers are well placed to study families within their broader context. Most studies used mixed methods or qualitative designs, but none interviewed whole families. Recommendations for social work family resilience research are offered to address gaps in the current literature and to increase social work's contribution to understanding family resilience.

Keywords: family resilience; family risks; resilience research; scoping review; South Africa

---

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Families matter. Families are frequently referred to as the cornerstone of society (Adema et al, 2020). This is because the family is a microsystem that provides proximal support to people with whom we are often closely connected - siblings, parents, children and grandparents (Fearnley, 2022). The well-being and flourishing of family life can determine the holistic development of a child, the capacity of adults to participate in the labour market, the provision of care for vulnerable people, the transmission of cultural and religious values, as well as providing access to basic needs, in line with the White Paper on Families (Republic of South Africa [RSA], 2021). For these and many other reasons, family preservation and family resilience have long been important components of social work.

However, despite this focus on the family and social work's interest in resilience, there appears to be only limited research on family resilience in social work in South Africa. We base this preliminary assertion on a search of the journal Social Work/Maatskaplikewerk for the term 'family resilience'. Only 14 hits came up, even though a search for 'famil*' (with the wild card) generated over 500 hits. An equivalent search of the Southern African Journal of Social Work and Social Development generated only one hit for 'family resilience', even though famil* generated 76 hits. Also of note, several of the articles found in this preliminary scan were authored by non-social workers, notably psychologists. These informal scans suggest that family resilience research is not as prolific in social work as it could and arguably should be.

Scoping reviews can "provide guidance to researchers planning future studies" (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008, p. xii). To support future research on family resilience, we decided to undertake a formal scoping review of the characteristics of research on family resilience in South Africa. We used Van Breda's (2018, p. 4) definition of resilience, viz. "The multilevel processes that systems engage in to obtain better-than-expected outcomes in the face or wake of adversity." This definition firmly locates resilience within the ecological context, in line with social ecological resilience (Ungar, 2012) and more recent multisystemic resilience thinking (Theron & Van Breda, 2021; Ungar et al., 2023). Furthermore, the definition allows the term 'systems' to be replaced with any system of interest. In this study, we are interested in family resilience, and thus propose that family resilience refers to the multilevel processes that families engage in to obtain better-than-expected outcomes in the face or wake of adversity.

A seminal definition of family resilience (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1996, p. 5) is

the positive behavioral patterns and functional competence individuals and the family unit demonstrate under stressful or adverse circumstances, which determine the family's ability to recover by maintaining its integrity as a unit while ensuring, and where necessary, restoring, the well-being of family members and the family unit as a whole.

Walsh (1996, p. 263), a global leader in the study of family resilience, defined family resilience as "key processes that enable families to cope more effectively and emerge hardier from crises or persistent stresses, whether from within or from outside the family." And more recently, Prime et al. (2023, p. 201) defined it as "a family's capacity to positively adapt to stress in a way that brings members closer together and enhances their resourcefulness for weathering future crises."

The McCubbins' and Prime et al.'s definitions differ from Van Breda's in that the focus is on what the family system does, while Van Breda emphasises what families do in interaction with their environment, which Walsh alludes to in her definition. We suggest that this latter view is more relevant and helpful for families and aligns more strongly with a social work understanding of the person-in-environment (PIE) (Weiss-Gal, 2008). The PIE locates every system, such as a family system, within a larger social ecology, and argues that the system can only be fully understood by considering the systems within and around the system. Thus, a family system can be adequately understood only by considering the internal components and functioning of a family, and how the family as a whole, as well as its constituent elements (family members), interacts with the various social and environmental systems around the family. Social work researchers are well placed to do social ecological or multisystemic research on family resilience because of their understanding of how people exist and operate within their environments. This is part of why we believe it is important for more research on family resilience to be carried out by social work researchers.

For this review, we defined a family operationally as a multigenerational household. This definition excludes couples (married or other) and child-headed households, as they constitute only one generation, and includes nuclear families (e.g. parents and children), extended families (e.g. parents with nieces, nephews, cousins, etc.), some fictive kin households (e.g. parents, children and friends of the children) and multigenerational households (e.g. grandparents, parents and children). 'Household' also requires the 'family' to be living together. Family in this review is thus defined by multiple generations rather than by close blood relations as in traditional Western conceptions of a nuclear family, and by proximity.

While both families and resilience are important concepts in social work, and while families and communities are cornerstones of ubuntu living in South Africa (Van Breda, 2019), there has not been a review of family resilience studies in South Africa since 2013 (Greeff). Greeffs review charts the development of the concept of family resilience, and summarises the findings of his own research on family resilience between 2004 and 2012. In our view, family resilience research should be a regular and typical topic of study among social workers, given social work's concern for children, families and communities. Families are key to both child and community wellbeing and flourishing, and thus family research generally, and family resilience research in particular, should be commonly undertaken (Maurović et al., 2020). This would align with South Africa's White Paper on Families, which has as its vision, "To promote safe, supportive, nurturing, and resilient families as a core unit of society" (RSA, 2021, p. 189, emphasis added).

Therefore, this scoping review sets out to answer the following primary question: What is known about the research on family resilience in South Africa? We are particularly interested in the characteristics of research on family resilience, rather than the findings of this research. We thus do not report on the resilience processes that facilitate healthy and well-functioning families. Instead, we focus on the nature of the research that has been done over the past two decades on family resilience. The main intended audience for this review is researchers and research supervisors, from social work and other fields, who are interested in studying family resilience. It is not intended to guide social workers in how to build family resilience.

The review has five secondary questions, which guide our analysis of the publication, viz.

1. Who are the leading family resilience scholars in South Africa and what disciplines do they represent?

2. What risks have been studied in relation to family resilience?

3. How is family resilience defined and conceptualised?

4. What research methods are used for understanding family resilience?

5. What are the profiles of participants (demographics) and study sites (provinces in South Africa)?

 

METHOD

A search of the Cochrane library of systematic reviews (at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/search) generated 54 studies on family resilience, none of which were conducted in South Africa and none of which reviewed family resilience research.

We considered and followed the guidelines of the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews in conducting this study (Pollock et al., 2023; Tricco et al., 2018). We worked collaboratively throughout the study, working together, or dividing work in half and then reviewing each other's half, or working through everything and then reviewing the other person's work. Typically, each stage was followed by a meeting to discuss points of discrepancy (such as whether a paper meets or does not meet our eligibility criteria) and to reach consensus through critical dialogue and listening. This ensured that every stage of the research involved multiple lenses, increasing the rigour of the review.

Eligibility criteria

Because this study is interested in family resilience, studies had to focus on the resilience of the family as a system, not just individuals in the family, e.g. a child or parent. This aligns well with Walsh (2021, p. 256), who emphasises the family as a system, rather than a collective of individuals, and who defines family resilience as "the capacity of the family, as a functional system, to withstand and rebound from adversity".

In addition, studies had to address the three essential components of resilience (Ungar, 2019; Van Breda, 2018), viz. (i) risk exposure, (ii) promotive and protective factors and processes (PPFPs), and (iii) outcomes, to ensure that they met the criteria of being resilience studies. Risk exposure refers to challenges confronting the family, as a whole or in part, and could include a breadwinner becoming unemployed, a child contracting cancer, or a family being evicted from their home. Risks could include brief crises such as a car accident or prolonged adversities such as living in poverty. The outcome of family resilience could include family wellbeing, harmonious relationships, or the capacity of the family to persist with daily family tasks. And PPFPs are the resources and processes in individuals in families, in the family as a whole, or in the ecosystem outside the boundaries of the family. In this study we focus primarily on risk exposure, because this defines the population being studied.

We set the date range for studies to the 20 years from January 2004 to December 2023. This was based on a preliminary rapid scan of the literature, which suggested about 40 studies, which we regarded as sufficient to answer our research questions. We were mindful of the partial overlapping of our dates with Greeffs (2013) review (2004-2012). However, we found 21 valid publications in his 2004-2012 timeframe compared to his 12 publications (all of which were found in our search), thus our review is more comprehensive for these dates.

All studies had to focus on families living in South Africa or South African families living elsewhere. We did not exclude studies if the families were not South African and we did not exclude studies conducted by non-South Africans. If studies involved families from multiple countries, we included them only if findings specific to the families in South Africa were provided.

We excluded studies if they were an intervention, a scoping or systematic review, or a literature review, and publications in a form other than a journal article or thesis (e.g. editorials, conference papers, books).

Information sources and search

We worked together on all stages of the scoping review. We started by searching for relevant academic journal publications and theses or dissertations in the following databases: EBSCO APA PsycArticles, EBSCO APA PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, EBSCO Family & Society Studies Worldwide, EBSCO Social Work Abstracts, EBSCO Sociology, Clarivate Web of Science, ProQuest Sociology, Sabinet African Journals, and Scopus. We searched for theses or dissertations in the Sabinet Union Catalogue for (South African) Theses and Dissertations, as this was the only available formal database of South African theses and dissertation.

We used two search terms: 'family resilience' and 'South Africa'. These terms were searched in titles, abstracts and keywords or subject terms. If there was an option to restrict to 'peer reviewed' publications, we selected it. The date range was set from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2023. Two examples of the line-by-line search strategy are provided:

• EBSCOHost: "family resilience" AND "South Africa" (Limiters - Peer Reviewed; Publication Year: 2004-2023)

• Clarivate: "family resilience" (All Fields) AND "South Africa" (All Fields) (Timespan: 2004-01-01 to 2023-12-31)

The search was conducted on 7 August 2024 and yielded 229 records (Figure 1). We exported the references to RIS files and imported them into Rayyan, an online scoping and systematic review programme. We included 12 additional articles and 10 dissertations or theses that we had previously found through our preliminary rapid scan of the literature that were not found through the identification of resources, resulting in 251 records. We used Rayyan to identify duplicate records and manually deleted 122 duplicates (see Figure 1), resulting in 129 records for screening.

Screening

We independently blind-screened the abstracts of all records on Rayyan, an open-access platform for conducting collaborative scoping and systematic reviews, to determine whether they met our eligibility criteria. We met on 13 August 2024 to reach consensus on the 14 records on which we had discrepant views. Through this, we excluded 61 records and selected 68 studies for full-text reading. Thirty-five of the 61 records were excluded because they did not address families, resilience or family resilience. Ten were not located in South Africa (but in Belgium, Canada, Cameroon, Malawi, Nigeria, Zimbabwe or USA), 10 were a wrong publication type (an editorial, conference abstract, or a thesis that was published as an article), and six had a wrong study design (an intervention or systematic review) (Figure 1).

We were able to retrieve all 68 records as full-text documents. We each read 50% of the full texts to confirm that they met the eligibility criteria, after which we moderated each other's decisions. We met on 16 August 2024 for a consensus discussion on discrepant views. As a result, we excluded a further nine studies, leaving 59 records as the final collection of literature for the review. Reasons for additional exclusions were similar to the records excluded, viz. four did not address families with two or more generations (parents, grandmothers, couples, youth-headed households), three had a wrong study design (scale validations or conceptual papers), one involved the same data published in two articles, and one was not located in South Africa (but Belgium) (Figure 1).

Data charting

We developed a data charting form for the study, based on our preliminary rapid scan of the literature and the study question and secondary questions, which included the:

1. Citation,

2. Study aim,

3. Definition of family resilience,

4. Research design,

5. Family structure or operationalisation of family, main selection criteria, participants (sample size and description), and the province(s) in which the study was conducted, and

6. Risk exposure.

We first extracted data from several studies to determine what data to extract and how to format it consistently. We then each extracted data into the form from 50% of the studies and then reviewed each other's extractions. We met on 6 September 2024 to reach consensus on points of difference (see Table 1, appended to the end of this manuscript).

Data analysis

Drawing on the guidelines in Pollock et al. (2023) and Petticrew and Roberts (2008), we used a combination of quantitative content analysis and basic qualitative content analysis. The former involved counting and comparing the numbers of instances of something, e.g. how many studies were conducted by social workers or what scales were used to measure resilience. The latter involved identifying common features or themes in the data, and summarising them, e.g. analysing how each study constructed family resilience, leading to intrafamilial and social ecological constructions of family resilience.

Trustworthiness

We built confidence in the findings of the review, i.e. the trustworthiness of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), through (a) following a rigorous and replicable research method; (b) working in a research team involving separate work, peer reviewing each other's work, and meeting to discuss points of difference; and (c) having authors from different disciplines (one in social work and one from outside of social work) to avoid disciplinary blind spots.

Collating and summarising results

Finally, we conducted a narrative synthesis of the extracted data (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008) to answer the research questions stated in the introduction.

 

FINDINGS

Our findings are aligned with our research questions, presented earlier, and focus on the characteristics of the research on family resilience, rather than on the findings of this research, in alignment with our research question, viz. What is known about the research on family resilience in South Africa?

Leading family resilience authors

It is clear from the studies listed in Table 1 that Abraham Greeff, who works in the Psychology Department at Stellenbosch University, has published the most about family resilience. He co-authored half (28 of 59) of the papers in the review and has supervised one thesis (Smith, 2006).

Otillia Brown, a clinical psychologist who now works abroad, co-authored four of the papers (Brown, Fouché & Coetzee, 2010; Brown, Howcroft & Muthen, 2010; Brown & Robinson, 2012; Kapp & Brown, 2011). Nicolette Roman of the University of the Western Cape co-authored four of the papers (Isaacs, et al., 2018; Isaacs et al., 2019; Rich et al., 2022; Roman et al., 2016). She has a PhD in psychology and holds the position of Director and SARChI Chair: Human Capabilities, Social Cohesion and the Family. Serena Isaacs, a research psychologist from the University of the Western Cape, co-authored three of the articles (Isaacs et al., 2018; Isaacs et al., 2019; Roman et al., 2016) and has supervised or co-supervised three theses on family resilience (October, 2018; Shoko, 2022; Twigg, 2017). Ruth Mampane, an educational psychologist at the University of Pretoria has supervised six theses on family resilience (Knox, 2014; Lewis, 2018; Louw, 2018; Mahlangu, 2015; Schneider, 2015; Von Backström, 2015), and Salome Human-Vogel, another educational psychologist at the University of Pretoria, has supervised three theses (Schneider, 2015; Sentle, 2018; Von Backström, 2015). JD Thwala, a community psychologist at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, has supervised or co-supervised three theses (Harakraj, 2005; Mbizana, 2007; Ncute, 2012). Teresa Mashego, a clinical psychologist from the University of Limpopo has co-authored one paper (Mashego & Taruvinga, 2014) and supervised two theses (Sathekge, 2019; Setwaba, 2015).

Raniga and Mthembu, both from UKZN at the time, are the only social workers to have an article that met our selection criteria. Van Breda, a prolific South African social work resilience scholar, did not have papers that met our eligibility criteria, but has published on family resilience (Van Breda, 1999a; 2001; 2011a; 2011b). Three of the theses are in the discipline of social work (Dyantyi, 2020; Moss, 2010; Robertson, 2005). An additional social work PhD thesis on family resilience (Moss, 2017) did not meet the eligibility criteria, but makes an important contribution to family resilience-based practice. It is striking that social workers are largely absent as contributors to the scholarship of family resilience, given social work's significant commitment to families and healthy family functioning, as evidenced by the profession's commitment to family preservation. This suggests a gap in the South African social work research profile.

Risks to families

The studies included in this review examine family resilience in a range of risky contexts, some 'acute' and some 'chronic' (Van Breda, 2018). Twenty-four studies consider the family's resilience to challenges within the family system. Specifically, eight studies look at family resilience in the wake of bereavement (Greeff & De Villiers, 2008; Greeff & Human, 2004; Greeff & Joubert, 2007; Greeff & Loubser, 2008; Greeff & Ritman, 2005; Harakraj, 2005; Mbizana, 2007; Smith, 2006) and three studies focus on grandparent-headed households (Knox, 2014; Mahlangu, 2015; Schneider, 2015). Six studies look at parenting: single-parenting (Greeff & Aspeling, 2007; Greeff & Fillis, 2009; Oosthuizen & Greeff, 2020; Raniga & Mthembu, 2017), adoption (Oosthuizen & Greeff, 2020), father-absent families (Louw, 2018) or the transition to parenthood (De Goede & Greeff, 2016). Four studies look at the effects on families of divorce or remarriage (Brown & Robinson, 2012; Greeff & Cloete, 2015; Greeff & Van Der Merwe, 2004; Mashego & Taruvinga, 2014). Two papers concern sexuality and families: one article reports on the effects of an adult child disclosing same-sex sexuality (De Villiers & Greeff, 2023), and a thesis reports on same-sex headed families (Rootman, 2016). One thesis reports on juvenile delinquency (Ncute, 2012).

Fifteen studies focus on family resilience to health challenges. Seven studies address situations in which a child in the family is experiencing some kind of difficulty or diagnosis, viz. autism spectrum disorder or ADHD (Brown, Howcroft & Muthen, 2010; Greeff & Van der Walt, 2010; Kapp & Brown, 2011), diabetes (Brown, Fouché & Coetzee, 2010), hearing difficulties (Ahlert & Greeff, 2012) and intellectual or developmental disabilities (Durr & Greeff, 2020; Greeff & Nolting, 2013). Eight studies investigate how families cope with a health concern faced by an adult, viz. HIV or Aids (Sathekge, 2019; Setwaba, 2015), visual impairment (De Klerk & Greeff, 2011), dementia (Deist & Greeff, 2017), schizophrenia or another mental illness (Bishop & Greeff, 2015; Jonker & Greeff, 2009), a heart-related trauma (Greeff & Wentworth, 2009), and cancer (Naidoo & Greeff, 2022; Sathekge, 2019).

Ten studies consider crises that occurred outside the family and impacted on the family, triggering the need for a resilience response. Three studies involve child-related crises, viz. a child being sexually abused (Robertson, 2005; Vermeulen & Greeff, 2015) or bullied (Greeff & Van den Berg, 2013). Seven studies consider family resilience after or during a traumatic event or a big change, namely a shack fire (Greeff & Lawrence, 2012), a house robbery (Van Niekerk & Greeff, 2020), migrating to a different city (Greeff & Holtzkamp, 2007), families facing a financial setback or change in their financial situation (Chipangura, 2018; Greeff & Loubser, 2008; Smith, 2006) and the period of COVID-19 (Rich et al., 2022).

Eleven studies are concerned with people living under generally difficult chronic conditions, such as communities with low levels of resources (Dyantyi, 2020; Isaacs et al., 2019; Lewis, 2018; October, 2018; Roman et al., 2016; Sentle, 2018; Shoko, 2022; Twigg, 2017; Von Backström, 2015), and poverty and unemployment (Monakedi, 2020; Raniga & Mthembu, 2017). Along similar lines, Moss (2010) studied families who were social work service users.

Greeff (2013, p. 288) argues that "it is essential that family resilience studies are conducted in well-defined populations that have been exposed to a specific crisis". This advice comes from within a positivist research framework. Social workers more typically work with families with multiple problems. Dealing with a range of acute and chronic risks needs to be reflected in research on family resilience.

Although the reviewed studies address a range of risks, there are gaps in the risks that have been researched. Scanning the topics addressed between 2019 and 2023 in the two South African social work journals - Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk and the Southern African Journal of Social Work and Social Development - suggests a lack of research on family resilience in relation to the common risks of substance abuse, gangsterism and intimate partner violence. Other topics that are addressed in these journals, and appear to be of interest to social workers, but that have not yet been studied as risks relating to family resilience include: fostering, family removals and reunification, emigration, human trafficking, homelessness, teenage pregnancy, witness protection programmes, suicidal behaviour, bipolar disorder and xenophobia. Adoption (Oosthuizen & Greeff, 2020) and conflict with the law (Ncute, 2012) have each been studied once, but may deserve greater attention from social work researchers.

Definition and conceptualisation of family resilience

Before conceptualising family resilience, we considered how research defines and operationalises family and resilience. The White Paper on Families (RSA, 2021, p. iv) defines a family as "a societal group that is related by blood (kinship), adoption, foster care or the ties of marriage (civil, customary or religious), civil union or cohabitation, and goes beyond a particular physical residence." This is a comprehensive and compelling definition of a 'family'.

In research, however, terms must be operationalised. In this review, for example, we defined family in the introduction as 'a multigenerational household', recognising that this excluded several family types that in other contexts we would have defended. Child- or youth-headed households, for example, represent a family constellation that we believe is a legitimate family. However, for this review, an inclusive definition that could include parents living in different countries or a childless married couple or even an individual with animals they consider to be their 'family', would have made the selection of studies very challenging. Our definition limited families to those living in the same household or dwelling, and to include at least two generations (which could include a grandmother raising her grandchildren). All research requires operational definitions of key constructs. We did not, however, analyse how families were operationalised in the studies selected in the scoping review, beyond ensuring they met our eligibility criteria.

In the African context, such definitions can lead to cultural incongruence. For example, two South African dissertations (Mbizana, 2007; Ncute, 2012, p. 24) use the isiZulu term 'Umndeni' for family, meaning 'abantu bakithi', which translates as 'people of our own' and which can include both the living and the deceased. Both ancestors and the yet-unborn are integral parts of an African family (Van Breda, 2019). There are cultural, historical and socioeconomic reasons why families are as diverse as they are in South Africa, and these should be taken into account in family resilience research. Furthermore, prospective family members could be asked to define their own view of their family, though this may result in an overly diverse range of family constellations.

Once 'family' is defined, the next issue is how 'family resilience' is defined, theorised and operationalised in the research. Van Breda's definition of resilience, given earlier in the paper, is "The multilevel processes that systems engage in to obtain better-than-expected outcomes in the face or wake of adversity" (2018:4, emphasis added). These processes include accessing resources of various kinds, which means the resources need to be available for the family to access. We find it helpful to think about these PPFPs in terms of 'internal' and 'external' processes and factors. In the case of family resilience, internal PPFPs are located within the family system, such as the family's spirituality, patterns of communication and space for individuation. External PPFPs are located outside the family, in the social ecology, such as relationships outside the family, accessibility of health services, community safety and family-affirming national policies and legislation.

Studies of the resilience of children and youths tend to over-emphasise personal or psychological resilience, followed by social support, but with relatively little attention given to contextual and structural systems (Van Breda & Theron, 2018). Prioritisation of internal resilience can lead to victim blaming, making individuals responsible for societal challenges and neoliberal practices (Van Breda, 2018). There is, for example, only so much that a family with an unemployed breadwinner can do to be resilient. Their resilience would be much improved by the availability of jobs, or other state-provided forms of access to material resources. There is a growing shift from the resilience philosophy of "beating the odds" to "beating the odds whilst also changing the odds" (Kara, et al., 2021, p. 3). While strengthening systems, such as individuals and families, is important, attention must also be given to dismantling those systems that oppress and disable systems. For example, as a consequence of the historical processes of colonialism and apartheid in South Africa, some families have more to cope with than others, which results in resilience being "an expectation foisted primarily on historically and contemporarily oppressed and excluded populations" (Suslovic & Lett, 2024, p. 339).

It is for these reasons that we emphasise the social-ecological approach to resilience (Ungar, 2012), which argues that the resilience of a system such as a family is determined more by the systems around the family, including the social, political and economic contexts, than by the internal functioning of the family itself. It is also why we endorse the more recent multisystemic approach to resilience (Ungar et al., 2023), which draws attention to systems beyond just the social environment (such as institutions, structures, the natural and built environments, culture and faith) and to the interactions between these systems, which can synergise to increase resilience. We do, however, note that with the increasingly complex construction of resilience comes an increasingly complex research method.

Of the 59 studies in this review, four did not explicitly define 'family resilience', though all allude to other resilience scholars, viz. Bishop and Greeff (2015) alluded to McCubbin and McCubbin (1996), while Walsh (2012), Greeff and De Villiers (2008) and De Goede and Greeff (2016) alluded to McCubbin and McCubbin (1996), and Roman et al. (2016) alluded to Sixbey's (2005) Resilience Assessment Scale.

Twenty-three studies provided definitions not of their own. Seven of these drew primarily on the family resilience conceptualisations of McCubbin et al. (1996), viz. (Deist & Greeff, 2015; Greeff & Du Toit, 2009; Greeff & Lawrence, 2012; Greeff & Nolting, 2013; Ncute, 2012; Schneider, 2015; Smith, 2006); 12 drew primarily on or referred to Walsh (2012), viz. (Deist & Greeff, 2017; Dyantyi, 2020; Harakraj, 2005; Jonker & Greeff, 2009; Mbizana, 2007; Monakedi, 2020; October, 2018; Raniga & Mthembu, 2017; Sentle, 2018; Shoko, 2022; Twigg, 2017; Von Backström, 2015); one drew on both McCubbin et al. (1996) and Walsh (2012) (Naidoo & Greeff, 2022), one on Masten (2011) (Durr & Greeff, 2020), one on Simon, Murphy and Smith (2005) (Rootman, 2016), and one on Truffino (2010) (Sathekge, 2019).

The remaining 32 studies constructed their own definitions of family resilience, such as "The ability not only to withstand but also to rebound from adversity" (Isaacs et al., 2019, p. 1634) and "A family's ability to use the resources available to them to overcome adversity" (Louw, 2018, p. 11). Many of these studies, however, did reference both McCubbin and Walsh in their work, as these are the two leading family resilience scholars globally.

Walsh (2012, p. 401) defines family resilience as "family members tapping into internal and external processes in times of adversity" adding that "families may develop new insights and coping abilities and become more resourceful in meeting adversities", while McCubbin et al. (1996, p. 5) defines it as "the positive behavioural patterns and functional competence individuals and the family unit demonstrate under stressful or adverse circumstances, which determine the family's ability to recover by maintaining its integrity as a unit while insuring, and where necessary restoring, the well-being of family members and the family unit as a whole." The contrast in these definitions is striking: Walsh places the emphasis on processes outside the family system, while McCubbin et al. focus squarely on the family system only.

Of the 55 studies that provided a definition, 48 located family resilience within the family as a system and within the individuals who comprise the family. For example, De Klerk and Greeff (2011, p. 414) define family resilience as the "ability of a family to adapt and prosper in the face of a challenge or stressor"; Greeff and Van Der Merwe (2004, p. 61) define it as "the ability of families to, in spite of severe stress and crises, stay intact and return to the pre-morbid level of functioning, or even to a higher level of functioning than before the crisis"; Greeff and Van den Berg (2013, p. 506) as "a path that families follow as they adapt and prosper, now and over time, when they are faced with stressors"; and Kapp and Brown (2011, p. 459) as "the maintenance of family patterns, the promotion of individual well-being of the family's individual members as well as a sense of cohesion within the family".

Less than one tenth of the studies with definitions (5 out of 55) referred, in their definitions, to processes, factors, resources, etc. both within and outside the family system, viz. "the families' ability to utilise their strengths and bounce back from adversity by using protective factors, such as parental mutuality, problem-solving skills, the expression of emotions, the development of an instrumental support system and spirituality and religion" (Brown, Fouché & Coetzee, 2010, p. 537); "The competency of a family unit in order to function optimally in the face of adversity with attention to the social ecology of the family" (Monakedi, 2020, p. 19); "The ability of a family to overcome challenges and crises by using internal and external family resources, so that individuals and the family unit can adapt to changing circumstances" (Oosthuizen & Greeff, 2020, p. 83); "Family members tapping into internal and external processes in times of adversity" (Raniga & Mthembu, 2017, p. 278); and "Recent theoretical conceptualisations of family resilience have been systemic, with risk and protective factors within a family viewed on relational and collective levels, including multiple systems like the family, friends, and community" (Vermeulen & Greeff, 2015, p. 556). This last definition is the most explicitly systemic definition of family resilience in this collection of 59 studies.

It can thus be seen that most definitions focus on intrafamilial processes only. It is clear from the definitions that family resilience authors in South Africa have not adequately engaged with developments in the theorisation of resilience over the past 20 years. Few show an awareness of social-ecological or multisystemic resilience. This may be a result of research on family resilience and child and youth resilience operating in separate spheres, with little cross-pollination between them. Bu et al. (2023) provide a non-South African exemplar of a multisystemic approach to family resilience in their study on Chinese families in which a member travels regularly to Hong Kong for education. The authors identify both intra-familial and extra-familial PPFPs. However, only one of the six PPFPs was external to the family system (economic and instrumental supports), thus this study is still heavily weighted towards internal PPFPs. Another non-South African qualitative study (Tan et al., 2024) generated a robust multisystemic view of family resilience, without using the term 'multisystemic'. It is noteworthy that a Google Scholar search for the phrase 'multisystemic family resilience' generated only one publication, viz. Bu et al. (2023), indicating that this is a cutting-edge field for innovative researchers.

Research methods

Because this paper is focused primarily on the characteristics of research on family resilience, rather than on the findings of this research, we give substantial attention to the methodological aspects of the studies included in this scoping review. These focus on the methodologies used - mixed, qualitative and quantitative methods - the quantitative measures or tools used, and some of the methodological gaps that emerged in the South African family resilience research corpus.

Mixed methods

Half of the studies (29 out of 59) used a mixed methods research approach, 24 used a qualitative approach, and six used a quantitative approach (Table 1). Walsh (2021) advocates for the expanded use of mixed methods for research on family resilience. The qualitative component of the mixed methods studies comprised just one open-ended question in 22 of the 29 mixed methods studies (Bishop & Greeff, 2015; Brown, Fouché & Coetzee, 2010; Brown, Howcroft & Muthen, 2010; Brown & Robinson, 2012; De Villiers & Greeff, 2023; Greeff & De Villiers, 2008; Greeff & Du Toit, 2009; Greeff & Fillis, 2009; Greeff & Holtzkamp, 2007; Greeff & Human, 2004; Greeff & Lawrence, 2012; Greeff & Nolting, 2013; Greeff & Ritman, 2005; Greeff & Van den Berg, 2013; Greeff & Van Der Merwe, 2004; Greeff & Van der Walt, 2010; Greeff & Wentworth, 2009; Jonker & Greeff, 2009; Kapp & Brown, 2011; Mbizana, 2007; Naidoo & Greeff, 2022; Ncute, 2012) and two open-ended questions in one study (Ahlert & Greeff, 2012). Of the remaining six mixed methods studies, the qualitative component comprised a focus group in one study (Isaacs et al., 2019), and a semi-structured interview in five studies (Deist & Greeff, 2015; 2017; Harakraj, 2005; Isaacs et al., 2019; Smith, 2006; Van Niekerk & Greeff, 2020).

The single open question used in many studies took the form of, "What are the most important factors, or strengths, which have helped you as a family with an autistic child?" (Kapp & Brown, 2011, p. 460) or "How did your family manage to deal with bullying and adapt to it?" (Greeff & Van den Berg, 2013, p. 508). Terms used in these questions to describe positive or better-than-expected outcomes included 'coping', 'adaptation', 'resilient', 'helped you as a family', 'assisted your family', 'deal with', 'manage', 'adapt', 'survive', and 'rebuild your lives'. Terms used to describe resilience processes included 'factors', 'characteristics', 'strengths', 'resources', 'helped' and 'family traits'. We note that these terms tend to focus on resilience resources within the family system, which we agree are important, as resilience resources have often been thought of as individual and psychological (Van Breda, 2018). However, the terms tend to exclude or mask potential resources in the family's environment, including people the family can draw on for external support (e.g. teachers, neighbours, colleagues), supportive institutions (e.g. churches, clinics), structural resources (e.g. food security, a liveable income, community safety, electricity), environmental resources (e.g. play parks, adequate housing, green areas), and cultural and religious resources (e.g. faith in God, ubuntu, prayer). This broader repertoire of resilience-enabling systems could be better accessed through the careful formulation of open questions. Exploratory questions could also have been asked, such as 'What would have helped your family had it been available?' or 'What did you not have access to that you think might have helped your family?'

We question, however, whether a predominantly quantitative study, with just one or two open questions, constitutes mixed methods research. There is still much debate about what constitutes mixed methods (Timans et al., 2019), and we don't attempt to define it here. However, we do encourage a more robust and in-depth use of qualitative methods alongside quantitative methods before calling the approach 'mixed'.

Qualitative methods

A little over one third of the 59 studies (n = 24) used a qualitative research approach, two thirds (n = 15) of which used semi-structured interviews. One of these had an interview schedule with just one open-ended question (Durr & Greeff, 2020, p. 223), viz. "What characteristics, strengths and resources helped your family to adapt after the diagnosis of your child's intellectual disability?", and another had just two open-ended question (Greeff & Joubert, 2007). One study supplemented the interviews with focus groups (Raniga & Mthembu, 2017). Three studies used grounded theory methods of analysis (De Goede & Greeff, 2016; De Klerk & Greeff, 2011; Greeff & Ritman, 2005), five thematic analysis (Monakedi, 2020; Raniga & Mthembu, 2017; Rich et al., 2022; Twigg, 2017; Vermeulen & Greeff, 2015), and two content analysis (Greeff & Joubert, 2007; Oosthuizen & Greeff, 2020).

Van Breda (2018, p. 12) has written, "Although some resilience research uses quantitative designs, which may make it vulnerable to an etic approach [looking from the outside in], much resilience research is qualitative, which is more amenable to an emic approach [looking from the inside out], allowing the voice and experience of participants to come to the fore." This may have been true of research on individual resilience in South Africa; it certainly was true of much of the work of Linda Theron and her associates 10 or more years ago (e.g. Malindi & Theron, 2010; Theron, 2004; Theron et al., 2011), who particularly pioneered the use of visual methods (Cameron et al., 2011). It is, however, less true of Theron's recent work, which now includes some very large quantitative studies (e.g. Theron et al., 2023; Theron et al., 2022).

Qualitative family resilience research could be enriched by expanding semi-structured interviews to include visual methods. For example, a social work study (Moss, 2010) included the creation of genograms, so that the family structure and history could be understood in more detail. Photovoice is another visual method that has been found helpful in family resilience studies elsewhere in the world and used here by Von Backström (2015) and Schneider (2015). Photovoice themes included transcendence and spirituality, cultural beliefs and practice, community protective factors, and social and economic resources. A study in Canada (Tan et al., 2024, p. 1), found five family resilience resources: "(1) social support networks; (2) factors fostering children's development; (3) access and connection to nature; (4) having a space of one's own; and (5) access to social services and community resources." What is striking about this list is the focus on systems outside the family unit, particularly the natural and built environments. These examples suggest that non-traditional methods of data collection may generate richer and more holistic data.

Finally, it is noteworthy that only two studies conducted conjoint interviews with families. Chipangura (2018) interviewed parent couples, and Knox (2014) interviewed a grandparent and her two grandchildren conjointly (though Knox incorrectly refers to this as a 'focus group' interview).

Quantitative methods

Only one tenth of the studies (n = 6) used an exclusively quantitative research approach (Greeff & Aspeling, 2007; Mashego & Taruvinga, 2014; October, 2018; Roman et al., 2016; Sathekge, 2019; Setwaba, 2015). All these studies drew on scales developed by McCubbin and most used the FACI8 (a measure of family adaptability and flexibility) as the outcome variable.

Quantitative measures

Almost two thirds (n = 35) of the studies made use of quantitative measures, in either mixed methods or quantitative studies (Table 1). The most frequently used scales are those developed by McCubbin et al. (1996), viz. SSI (n=39), FACI8 (n=33), FHI (n=30), RFS (n=29), F-COPES (n=27), FPSC (n=25) and FTRI (n=24) (Table 2). Twenty-two of the 29 papers with Greeff as an author made use of one or more of the McCubbin scales.

Hamilton McCubbin was a social worker, who, through his work in the military in the 1970s, worked on theorising family resilience as a system; he developed models of family resilience and designed scales to measure these models (Van Breda, 2001). His wife, a nurse, joined his research programme from around the mid-1980s. Greeff has been studying family resilience in South Africa for over two decades, drawing particularly on McCubbin's Resiliency Model of Family Stress, Adjustment and Adaptation (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1996).

Part of the value of the McCubbin model and scales is that the focus is on the family as a system, rather than a collection of individuals. Furthermore, some scales focus on resilience resources external to the family, as can be seen in the constructs in Table 2. Social-ecological family resilience is thus well measured with McCubbin's tools, even if the researchers do not define family resilience in social-ecological or multisystemic terms. Many of these scales have been translated into Afrikaans, isiXhosa and other languages.

The advantage of using these measures is that comparisons can be made across risks, contexts and sites. The disadvantage is that they can limit researchers to measure-driven resilience processes, which may not be relevant or sufficient in all contexts. A study of Black American families (Hollingsworth, 2013, p. 232), for example, reported on resilience resources that are not included in well-known family resilience frameworks: "expression of empathy, compassion, and forgiveness; the use of remembering; the use of rituals; the experience of gratitude and humility; the experience of dreams and clairvoyant experiences". These Black American resilience resources may also be valuable in African contexts. Dreams, for example, are important ways to receive communication from ancestors and to make sense of situations in many cultures both in and out of Africa (Van Breda, 1999b), though we are not aware of any research that has looked at the link between dreams and family resilience. The international measurements do not take into account such resilience resources, however, so they may be invisible to quantitative studies on family resilience in South Africa. The lack of attention to indigenous family resilience resources is a gap in the literature.

Methodological gaps

A clear gap in family resilience research is longitudinal research, which Walsh (2021) argues is crucial to understand family resilience processes. Resilience is recognised as a process that unfolds over time (Van Breda, 2018). McCubbin's Resiliency Model of Family Stress, Adjustment and Adaptation (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1996) tracks resilience processes over time. Longitudinal studies are evident in South African child and youth resilience studies (e.g. Christodoulou, Rotheram-Borus, Rezvan, Comulada, Stewart, Almirol & Tomlinson, 2022; Van Breda, 2024), but not in family resilience studies. Such studies have been conducted elsewhere, e.g. in China (Zhang et al., 2022). While longitudinal studies are difficult and take time, they do allow for a more nuanced tracking of families' resilience journeys through time. Alternatively, researchers could consider doing a phased retrospective review of families' resilience journey.

It should be recognised that these research methods essentially measure or describe individual family members' perceptions of the family's resilience, rather than the resilience of the family as a system (De Haan et al., 2002). Family resilience is typically measured through scales or interviews with one, two or more family members. The challenge is how to aggregate their views to formulate a family measure. Arguably, to understand actual processes of resilience, rather than reporting on how family members perceive the resilience of their own family, would require observation of families over time, which may not be feasible. This review reveals that two thirds of the studies (37 of 59) had just one person representing the family and in half of the studies (n = 30) an adult represented the family. This raises concerns about the degree to which this one individual can provide an accurate and holistic impression of the family system. It is striking that none of the studies involved whole families - this is limitation that should be remedied in future family resilience studies.

Demographic profile of participants

Perhaps due to the clustering of authors and supervisors in specific institutions, there are some very clear patterns in terms of research sites. Over half (n = 33) of the studies took place in the Western Cape. A fifth (n = 11) were situated in Gauteng, five in the Eastern Cape and three each in Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal. The other studies either didn't give a specific research site or were done with people across different places. This shows some obvious gaps, or at least extreme unevenness, in terms of research sites.

Race is not consistently reported in the studies. Of the 38 studies that do report race, 15 have all African or majority African participants (a third of the studies that report race). A third these studies (n = 12) have only or mainly Coloured research participants and a further third (n = 11) have only or mainly White research participants. This shows that Coloured and White participants are overrepresented in relation to the racial makeup of the South African population. The number of studies done with Coloured or White participants is probably higher, as evidenced by the studies that give English or Afrikaans as the languages of the participants, without describing race.

Comparative studies of race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status are uncommon. Ahlert and Greeff (2012) compared how African and Coloured families coped with having a deaf child and found that Coloured parents believed internal family processes were the main thing that aided their resilience, while African parents believed that community resources were most important. They explain this in terms of different cultural orientations, with African families being more collective and communally oriented, while they describe Coloured families as being more individualistic. There are no studies on whether African people cope differently from White or Coloured people with risks such as bereavement, physical or mental illness, or divorce. People attribute causation and meaning to physical and mental illnesses differently depending on their belief systems (Bogopa, 2010; Bosire et al., 2022; Horn, 2020; Lourens, 2013). However, nothing is yet known about how these differences influence family resilience in South Africa. Similarly, there are no studies that compare how families who have medical aid and receive private medical care cope with a health issue compared to those who receive treatment through the public health system.

There are problematic patterns in terms of gender, too. One study looked at mothers who had been diagnosed with breast cancer (Naidoo & Greeff, 2022) and two at single mothers (Oosthuizen & Greeff, 2020; Raniga & Mthembu, 2017), so they intentionally had only female participants. There were, conversely, fewer studies with mostly male participants. One looked at people who had experienced heart-related trauma (Greeff & Wentworth, 2009), while another had participants who were adult children disclosing same-sex sexuality (De Villiers & Greeff, 2023). However, three quarters of the studies (n = 47) had more female participants than male participants. In total, where the gender of participants was specified, there were 2,402 (69%) female participants and 1,062 (31%) male participants.

Sometimes the difference between the number of male and female participants was very large. In some studies, the participants were around 80% or 90% female (e.g. Ahlert & Greeff, 2012; Bishop & Greeff, 2015; Deist & Greeff, 2017; Greeff & Van Der Merwe, 2004). In one study on the adaptation of families to a child having autism, all of the caregiver participants were female, even though the instruction was just for a 'caregiver' to complete the questionnaire (Kapp & Brown, 2011). In research that included both an adult and an adolescent member of the same family, there was a tendency for the adults to be mostly female and the adolescents to be more evenly, though not necessarily completely, split between male and female (e.g. Greeff & Human, 2004; Greeff & Loubser, 2008). There is clearly a gap in research in terms of learning more about the perspectives of adult South African men on family resilience.

In 16 studies, members of two generations in the family were invited to participate in the study. Thirteen studies report on findings for parents and children separately (Brown & Robinson, 2012; Greeff & Aspeling, 2007; Greeff & Du Toit, 2009; Greeff & Fillis, 2009; Greeff & Holtzkamp, 2007; Greeff & Human, 2004; Harakraj, 2005; Knox, 2014; Mahlangu, 2015; Mashego & Taruvinga, 2014; Mbizana, 2007; Rootman, 2016; Smith, 2006). Three studies (Greeff & Loubser, 2008; Ncute, 2012; Sentle, 2018) did not separate out the data for family members of different generations. Researchers who do research with more than one generation should make decisions about whether to make comparisons between generations. We suggest that it is probably useful to consider whether there are generational differences in the findings.

 

DISCUSSION

This study set out to answer the question: What is known about the research on family resilience in South Africa? Our findings show that family resilience is a topic of study in South Africa, with around three publications per year over the past 20 years. It is, however, clear that most of this research is conducted outside of the social work profession, even though family is a central focus of social work (RSA, 2021). Instead, the field is primarily driven by psychology, and indeed by one psychologist, Abraham Greeff, who has contributed about half the South African research on family resilience. In fact, we found only one publication and three dissertations on family resilience conducted by social workers. This is concerning, because families are so central to the social work profession, both as the context for child development and as the cornerstone of society. Building family resilience, guided by robust social ecological research, could contribute to family preservation (Mosoma & Spies, 2016).

The body of South African research on family resilience covers a broad range of family and individual risks, including risks within the family system, health-related risks among children and parents, crises that impact on members or the family as a whole, and chronic risks such as poverty and under-resourced communities. It is noteworthy, however, that there is little or no research on some important social work themes, such as substance misuse, domestic violence and child abuse, racism, xenophobia and patriarchy, all of which are challenges familiar to social workers.

Although we conceptualised family resilience as a multisystemic process, we found that most studies located family resilience primarily within the family and not in the family's interactions with the world around them. This may be the result of an over-representation of psychologists doing family resilience research, potentially resulting in the problematic 'psychologisation' of the concept of resilience (Zembylas, 2021), which can easily lead to neoliberal practices (Park et al., 2018). This gap creates an opportunity to adopt more ecosystemic approaches to future family resilience research in South Africa. This gap appears to be global and not specific to South Africa. For example, one study states "family resilience in a social-ecological context" in the title (Vladislav et al., 2024, p. 1), but does not mention the notion of 'social-ecological' anywhere in the body of the manuscript. And many studies on family resilience treat family resilience as the PPFPs for the wellbeing of children or older persons in the family (e.g. Braj sa-Zganec et al., 2024), while other studies that address the wellbeing of the family focus only on intra-familial resilience processes (e.g. Zhu et al., 2024).

Despite extensive searches, we could find only one recent study on family resilience from an ecosystemic perspective. This study, conducted in China, used a descriptive phenomenological research design to explore family resilience in families where a parent had a permanent colostomy (Yang et al., 2024). In this study, family resilience drew from the family's belief systems, the adjustment of roles within the family system, and open communication among family members. In addition to these intra-familial PPFPs, families also reported drawing PPFPs from outside the family, such as gathering information from experts or the internet, the continuity of professional support and home care, and the provision of public services (such as toilets for the disabled where the colostomy bag could be emptied), social care and insurance policies. This is a good, but isolated, exemplar of multisystemic family resilience. No comparable studies have been conducted in South Africa.

Regarding the methodologies used, mixed methods were most prominent, although in many of these the qualitative component constituted just a single open-ended question, following a battery of quantitative scales. Most of the scales are drawn from the work of Hamilton McCubbin, a Canadian/Hawaiian social worker who pioneered the field of family resilience. Although these scales are drawn from the Global North, many have been translated into various South African languages and validated for use among South African cultural groups, providing a solid foundation of quantitative measurement tools. Furthermore, some tools have been developed locally by South Africans (e.g. Van Breda, 2011a).

It is noteworthy that not a single study interviewed the whole family; all studies relied on one or two members of the family to represent the family in data collection. Here is another significant gap and opportunity in family resilience methodology, since the object of interest (the family) has, in fact, not been studied over the past 20 years in South Africa.

 

LIMITATIONS

This study has limitations. First, we searched only English-language databases. While this did pick up one Afrikaans-language paper, which we included, there may have been other papers or theses that were not found because of their language. Second, we did not include grey literature in the study, which may have resulted in our missing technical reports, magazine or newspaper articles and other informal publications. Third, when parts of a thesis were published as journal articles, we used the articles and not the thesis. The thesis, being longer, would have had more detail, which we would have missed. Fourth, we defined a family as a multigenerational household, which provided the clear empirical boundary that a scoping review requires, but would have excluded studies on child-headed households, couples without children, and single-generation families who regard ancestors as part of the present family. And fifth, the use of just two search terms ('family resilience' and 'South Africa') may have led to some relevant publications being overlooked.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Given these findings, it is recommended that social workers take up the opportunity to conduct research on family resilience, since this falls firmly within the mandate of the social work profession. We encourage social workers to use mixed methods research designs, drawing on the solid foundation of quantitative measures, supplemented particularly with conjoint family interviews. We suggest that social workers consider addressing some of the prominent risks that are germane to our profession: substance misuse, child abuse, racism, patriarchy, poverty and inequality. We recognise that these risks tend to be chronic and multisystemic, rather than time-limited and focused on a single system. Researching such risks may be more complex, and often avoided, which is why we suggest that these are important innovative avenues for exploration.

Based on this scoping review, we conclude that family resilience is a quintessentially social work terrain that has, unfortunately, been largely neglected in South Africa, and perhaps globally. We view this as a research space with great potential for ground-breaking and internationally relevant research. We hope that this review may provide guidance to aspirant family resilience researchers.

 

REFERENCES

Adema, W., Clarke, C., & Thévenon, O. (2020). Family policies and family outcomes in OECD countries. In: R. Nieuwenhuis, & W. Van Lancker (eds.) The Palgrave handbook of family policy. Palgrave Macmillan.         [ Links ]

Ahlert, I. A., & Greeff, A. P. (2012). Resilience factors associated with adaptation in families with deaf and hard of hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(4), 391-404.         [ Links ]

Antonovsky, A., & Sourani, T. (1988). Family sense of coherence and family adaptation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.2307/352429        [ Links ]

Bishop, M., & Greeff, A. P. (2015). Resilience in families in which a member has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 22(7), 463-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12230        [ Links ]

Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 349. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.2.349        [ Links ]

Bogopa, D. (2010). Health and ancestors: The case of South Africa and beyond. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 10(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.2989/IPJP.2010.10.1.8.1080        [ Links ]

Bosire, E. N., Cele, L., Potelwa, X., Cho, A., & Mendenhall, E. (2022). God, Church water and spirituality: Perspectives on health and healing in Soweto, South Africa. Global Public Health, 17(7), 1172-1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2021.1919738        [ Links ]

Brajsa-Zganec, A., Dzida, M., & Kucar, M. (2024). Family resilience and children's subjective well-being: A two-wave study. Children, 11(4), 442. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040442        [ Links ]

Brown, O., Fouché, P., & Coetzee, M. (2010). Bouncing forward: Families living with a type I diabetic child. South African Family Practice, 52(6), 536-541. https://doi.org/10.1080/20786204.2010.10874044        [ Links ]

Brown, O., Howcroft, G., & Muthen, T. (2010). Resilience in families living with a child diagnosed with hyperactivity/attention deficit disorder. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 338-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631004000312        [ Links ]

Brown, O., & Robinson, J. (2012). Resilience in remarried families. South African Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 114-126.         [ Links ]

Bu, H., Liu, I. K. f., Chi, X., & Yu, N. X. (2023). Investigating challenges and family resilience among Chinese families with cross-boundary students: A multisystemic approach. Child & Family Social Work: Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.13064        [ Links ]

Cameron, C. A., Theron, L. C., Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2011). Adapting visual methodologies to identify youth protective processes in negotiating resilience across cultures and contexts. Australian Community Psychologist, 23(2), 68-84.         [ Links ]

Chipangura, O. (2018). Financial crisis and psychological resilience in families with young children. (Master's dissertation). University of South Africa, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Christodoulou, J., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Rezvan, P. H., Comulada, W. S., Stewart, J., Almirol, E., & Tomlinson, M. (2022). Where you live matters: Township neighborhood factors important to resilience among South African children from birth to 5 years of age. Preventive Medicine, 157: 106966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.106966        [ Links ]

De Goede, C., & Greeff, A. P. (2016). Sustaining family routines after transitioning into parenthood: Couples' perceptions assisting factors. Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, 28(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC194915        [ Links ]

De Haan, L., Hawley, D. R., & Deal, J. E. (2002). Operationalizing family resilience: A methodological strategy. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(4), 275-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180290033439        [ Links ]

Deist, M., & Greeff, A. P. (2015). Resilience in families caring for a family member diagnosed with dementia. Educational Gerontology, 41(2), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2014.942146        [ Links ]

Deist, M., & Greeff, A. P. (2017). Living with a parent with dementia: A family resilience study. Dementia, 16(1), 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301215621853        [ Links ]

De Klerk, H., & Greeff, A. P. (2011). Resilience in parents of young adults with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105(7), 414-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1110500704        [ Links ]

De Villiers, L., & Greeff, A. P. (2023). Resilience in families after a child's same-sex sexual orientation disclosure: The child's perspective. American Journal of Family Therapy, 51(4), 476-490. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.2012851        [ Links ]

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752ipa4901_13        [ Links ]

Durr, E., & Greeff, A. (2020). Resilience characteristics of families with children with severe or profound intellectual disability. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 56(2), 221-234. https://doi.org/10.15270/52-2-822        [ Links ]

Dyantyi, N. (2020). Exploring the functioning of families living in the socially disorganized communities of Khayelitsha and Delft: A family resilience perspective. (Master's dissertation). University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1983.tb01497.x        [ Links ]

Fearnley, B. (2022). Developing knowledge and skills for child and family social work. Learning Matters.         [ Links ]

Friedrich, W. N., Greenberg, M. T., & Crnic, K. (1983). A short form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88(1), 41-48.         [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P. (2013). Aspects of family resilience in various groups of South African families. In: Wissing, M. P., & Wissing, M. P. (eds.) Well-being research in South Africa. Springer Science + Business Media.         [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Aspeling, E. (2007). Resiliency in South African and Belgian single-parent families. Acta Academica, 39(2), 139-157. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC15380        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Cloete, M. (2015). Family resilience factors in remarried families in South Africa and Belgium. Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, 27(2), 187-203. https://doi.org/10.25159/2415-5829/365        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & De Villiers, M. (2008). Optimism in family resilience. Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, 20(1), 21-34.         [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Du Toit, C. (2009). Resilience in remarried families. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37(2), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180802151919        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Fillis, A. J.-A. (2009). Resiliency in poor single-parent families. Families in Society, 90(3), 279-285. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3902        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Holtzkamp, J. (2007). The prevalence of resilience in migrant families. Family & Community Health, 30(3), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.FCH.0000277762.70031.44        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Human, B. (2004). Resilience in families in which a parent has died. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 32(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180490255765        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Joubert, A.-M. (2007). Spirituality and resilience in families in which a parent has died. Psychological Reports, 100(3), 897-900. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.100.3.897-900        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Lawrence, J. (2012). Indications of resilience factors in families who have lost a home in a shack fire. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 210-224. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1108        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Loubser, K. (2008). Spirituality as a resiliency quality in Xhosa-speaking families in South Africa. Journal of Religion and Health, 47(3), 288-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-007-9157-7        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Nolting, C. (2013). Resilience in families of children with developmental disabilities. Families Systems & Health, 31(4), 396-405. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035059        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Ritman, I. N. (2005). Individual characteristics associated with resilience in single-parent families. Psychological Reports, 96(1), 36-42. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.96.1.36-4        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Van den Berg, E. (2013). Resilience in families in which a child is bullied. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 41(5), 504-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2012.757692        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Van Der Merwe, S. (2004). Variables associated with resilience in divorced families. Social Indicators Research, 68(1), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000025569.95499.b5        [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Van der Walt, K.-J. (2010). Resilience in families with an autistic child. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(3), 347-355.         [ Links ]

Greeff, A. P., & Wentworth, A. (2009). Resilience in families that have experienced heart-related trauma. Current Psychology, 28(4), 302-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-009-9062-1        [ Links ]

Harakraj, N. (2005). Resilience in Indian families in which a member has died. (Master's dissertation). University of Zululand, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Hollingsworth, L. D. (2013). Resilience in black families. In D. S. Becvar. (ed.) Handbook of family resilience. Springer.         [ Links ]

Horn, J. (2020). Decolonising emotional well-being and mental health in development: African feminist innovations. Gender & Development, 28(1), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2020.1717177        [ Links ]

Isaacs, S. A., Roman, N., Savahl, S., & Sui, X.-C. (2018). Adapting and validating the family resilience assessment scale in an Afrikaans rural community in South Africa. Community Mental Health Journal, 54(1), 73-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-017-0091-1        [ Links ]

Isaacs, S. A., Roman, N. V., & Savahl, S. (2019). An exploration of the family resilience needs of a rural community in South Africa: A sequential explanatory mixed methodological study design. Current Psychology, 38(6), 1634-1648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9722-5        [ Links ]

Jonker, L., & Greeff, A. P. (2009). Resilience factors in families living with people with mental illnesses. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(7), 859-873. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20337        [ Links ]

Kapp, L., & Brown, O. (2011). Resilience in families adapting to autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 21(3), 459-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2011.10820482        [ Links ]

Kara, B., Morris, R., Brown, A., Wigglesworth, P., Kania, J., Hart, A., Mezes, B., Cameron, J., & Eryigit-Madzwamuse, S. (2021). Bounce forward: A school-based prevention programme for building resilience in a socioeconomically disadvantaged context. Frontiers in psychiatry, 11: 599669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.599669        [ Links ]

Knox, X. (2014). Exploring family resilience processes in a low socio-economic grandmother-headed household with HIV affected orphans. (Master's dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Lewis, L.-A. (2018). Parents' perceptions of family resilience in a low socio-economic environment. (Master's dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.         [ Links ]

Lourens, M. (2013). An exploration of Xhosa speaking patients' understanding of cancer treatment and its influence on their treatment experience. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 31(1), 103-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2012.741091        [ Links ]

Louw, J. A. (2018). Adolescents' perceptions of family resilience in an absent father family. (Master's dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Mahlangu, E. S. (2015). Resilience processes employed by families from a low socioeconomic background. (Master's dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Malindi, M. J., & Theron, L. C. (2010). The hidden resilience of street youth. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 318-326. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631004000310        [ Links ]

Mashego, T.-A. B., & Taruvinga, P. (2014). Family resilience factors influencing teenagers' adaptation following parental divorce in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Journal of Psychology, 5(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566292.2014/05.01.03        [ Links ]

Masten, A. S. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Frameworks for research, practice, and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2), 493-506. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579411000198        [ Links ]

Maurovic, I., Liebenberg, L., & Ferié, M. (2020). A review of family resilience: Understanding the concept and operationalization challenges to inform research and practice. Child Care in Practice, 26(4), 337-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2020.1792838        [ Links ]

Mbizana, C. (2007). Resilience in bereaved Zulu families. (Master's dissertation). University of Zululand, South Africa.         [ Links ]

McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1996). Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation: Inventories for research and practice. University of Wisconsin.         [ Links ]

McCubbin, M. A., & McCubbin, H. I. (1996). Resiliency in families: A conceptual model of family adjustment and adaptation in response to stress and crises. In: H. I. McCubbin, A. I. Thompson, & M. A. McCubbin (eds.) Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation: Inventories for research and practice. University of Wisconsin.         [ Links ]

Monakedi, L. S. (2020). Perspectives on family resilience in the face of unemployment. (Master's dissertation). University of the Free State, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Mosoma, Z., & Spies, G. (2016). Social workers' experiences with the South African Policy Manual on Family Preservation Services. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, 28(2), 187-202.         [ Links ]

Moss, S. M. (2010). Exploring family resilience amongst South African social work client families. (Master's dissertation). University of South Africa, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Moss, S. M. (2017). Practice guidelines for social workers to foster and sustain family resilience. (Doctoral thesis). University of South Africa, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Naidoo, N., & Greeff, A. P. (2022). Resilience in low- to middle-income families with a mother diagnosed with breast cancer. American Journal of Family Therapy, 52(1), 128145. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2022.2069176        [ Links ]

Ncute, M. (2012). Resilience in Xhosa families where there is a juvenile delinquent. (Doctoral thesis). University of Zululand, South Africa.         [ Links ]

October, K. R. (2018). An investigation into the correlates of family resilience in an impoverished rural community in the Western Cape. (Master's dissertation). University of the Western Cape, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Oosthuizen, M., & Greeff, A. P. (2020). Veerkragtigheid in die enkelma-transrasgesin [Resilience in the single-mother transracial family]. Litnet Akademies, 17(2), 82-112. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC-1f82b02607        [ Links ]

Park, Y., Crath, R., & Jeffery, D. (2018). Disciplining the risky subject: A discourse analysis of the concept of resilience in social work literature. Journal of Social Work, 20(2), 152172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017318792953        [ Links ]

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell.         [ Links ]

Pollock, D., Peters, M. D., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., Evans, C., de Moraes, É. B., Godfrey, C. M., & Pieper, D. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520-532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123        [ Links ]

Prime, H., Walsh, F., & Masten, A. S. (2023). Building family resilience in the wake of a global pandemic: Looking back to prepare for the future. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 64(3), 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000366        [ Links ]

Raniga, T., & Mthembu, M. (2017). Family resilience in low income communities: A case study of an informal settlement in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. International Journal of Social Welfare, 26(3), 276-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12243        [ Links ]

Republic of South Africa (RSA). (2021). Department of Social Development. Revised White Paper on Families in South Africa. Notice 540 of 2021. Government Gazette, Vol. 586, No. 44799. (2 July 2021). Pretoria: Government Printers.         [ Links ]

Rich, E. G., Butler-Kruger, L., Sonn, I. K., Kader, Z., & Roman, N. (2022). Family resilience and the COVID-19 pandemic: A South African study. Social Sciences, 11(9), 419. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090416        [ Links ]

Robertson, M. (2005). Family resilience in response to extrafamilial child sexual abuse. (Master's dissertation). University of Cape Town, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). Psychological Reports, 77: 819-830.         [ Links ]

Roman, N. V., Serena Ann, I., Charl, D., & Xin-Cheng, S. (2016). How well are families doing? A description of family well-being in South Africa. Family Medicine and Community Health, 4(3), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.15212/FMCH.2016.0115        [ Links ]

Rootman, L. (2016). Same sex families' resilience processes associated with family identity. (Master's dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa. https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/60980?show=full        [ Links ]

Sathekge, M. K. (2019). Ambiguous loss and grief reactions among adolescents with parents(s) diagnosed with HIV/AIDS: Identifying moderating family qualities/resilience for intervention. (Doctoral thesis). University of Limpopo, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Schneider, K. M. A. (2015). Determining how a grandparent-headed family expresses family resilience. (Master's dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Sentle, O. B. (2018). Contributions to resilience of family beliefs about adversity and spirituality. (Master's dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Setwaba, M. B. (2015). Stress and dysfunction in families caring for members physically deteriorating due to HIV/Aids in Limpopo Province: Resilience as a moderating factor. (Doctoral thesis). University of Limpopo, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Shoko, P. M. (2022). Children's experiences and perceptions of family and family resilience process in South Africa. (Master's dissertation). University of the Western Cape, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Simon, J. B., Murphy, J. J., & Smith, S. M. (2005). Understanding and fostering family resilience. The Family Journal, 13(4), 427-436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278724        [ Links ]

Sixbey, M. T. (2005). Development of the family resilience assessment scale to identify family resilience constructs. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, USA.         [ Links ]

Smith, P. (2006). Resilience in Xhosa families. (Doctoral thesis). University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321        [ Links ]

Suslovic, B., & Lett, E. (2024). Resilience is an adverse event: A critical discussion of resilience theory in health services research and public health. Community Health Equity Research & Policy, 44(3), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/2752535x231159721        [ Links ]

Tan, Y., Pinder, D., Bayoumi, I., Carter, R., Cole, M., Jackson, L., Watson, A., Knox, B., Chan-Nguyen, S., Ford, M., Davison, C. M., Bartels, S. A., & Purkey, E. (2024). Family and community resilience: A Photovoice study. International Journal for Equity in Health, 23(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02142-2        [ Links ]

Theron, L. C. (2004). The role of personal protective factors in anchoring psychological resilience in adolescents with learning difficulty. South African Journal of Education, 24(4), 317-321.         [ Links ]

Theron, L. C., Cameron, C. A., Didkowsky, N., Lau, C., Liebenberg, L., & Ungar, M. (2011). A "day in the lives" of four resilient youths: Cultural roots of resilience. Youth & Society, 43(3), 799-818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x11402853        [ Links ]

Theron, L. C., Höltge, J., & Ungar, M. (2023). Multisystemic supports and adolescent resilience to depression over time: A South African mixed methods study. Development and Psychopathology, 35(5), 2365-2383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579423000494        [ Links ]

Theron, L. C., Rothmann, S., Makhnach, A., & Ungar, M. (2022). Adolescent mental health resilience and combinations of caregiver monitoring and warmth: A person-centred perspective. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 31(10), 2860-2870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02287-0        [ Links ]

Theron, L. C., & Van Breda, A. D. (2021). Multisystemic enablers of Sub-Saharan child and youth resilience to maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 119(2), 105083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105083        [ Links ]

Timans, R., Wouters, P., & Heilbron, J. (2019). Mixed methods research: What it is and what it could be. Theory and Society, 48(2), 193-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5        [ Links ]

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C. M., Macdonald, M. T., Langlois, E. V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunçalp, Ö., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850        [ Links ]

Truffino, J. C. (2010). Resilience: An approach to the concept. Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health, 3(4), 145-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2173-5050(10)70024-8        [ Links ]

Twigg, J. (2017). A qualitative exploration of the dimensions of family resilience in a rural community on the West Coast. (Master's dissertation). University of the Western Cape, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Ungar, M. (2012). Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In: M. Ungar (ed.) The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice. Springer.         [ Links ]

Ungar, M. (2019). Designing resilience research: Using multiple methods to investigate risk exposure, promotive and protective processes, and contextually relevant outcomes for children and youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 96: 104098. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.chiabu.2019.104098        [ Links ]

Ungar, M., Theron, L., & Höltge, J. (2023). Multisystemic approaches to researching young people's resilience: Discovering culturally and contextually sensitive accounts of thriving under adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 35(5), 2199-2213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579423000469        [ Links ]

Van Breda, A. D. (1999a). Developing resilience to routine separations: An occupational social work intervention. Families in Society, 80(6), 597-605. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.1774        [ Links ]

Van Breda, A. D. (1999b). Parallels between Jungian and Black African views on dreams. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27(2), 141-154. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022818722913        [ Links ]

Van Breda, A. D. (2001). Resilience theory: A literature review. South African Military Health Service.         [ Links ]

Van Breda, A. D. (2011a). Resilience assessments in social work: The case of the SA Department of Defence. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 47(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.15270/47-1-139        [ Links ]

Van Breda, A. D. (2011b). Resilient workplaces: An initial conceptualization. Families in Society, 92(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.4059        [ Links ]

Van Breda, A. D. (2018). A critical review of resilience theory and its relevance for social work. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 54(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.15270/54-1-611        [ Links ]

Van Breda, A. D. (2019). Developing the notion of ubuntu as African theory for social work practice. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 55(4), 439-450. https://doi.org/10.15270/55-4-762        [ Links ]

Van Breda, A. D. (2024). The contribution of supportive relationships to care-leaving outcomes: A longitudinal resilience study in South Africa. Child Care in Practice, 30(3), 400-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2022.2037516        [ Links ]

Van Breda, A. D., & Theron, L. C. (2018). A critical review of South African child and youth resilience studies, 2009-2017. Children and Youth Services Review, 91: 237-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.childyouth.2018.06.022        [ Links ]

Van Niekerk, S. I., & Greeff, A. P. (2020). Factors associated with resilience in families after a house robbery incident: A mixed-methods study. Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology & Victimology, 33(1), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.10520/eic-crim-v33-n1-a5        [ Links ]

Vermeulen, T., & Greeff, A. P. (2015). Family resilience resources in coping with child sexual abuse in South Africa. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(5), 555-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2015.1042183        [ Links ]

Vladislav, E. O., Marc, G., Paica, C.-I., & Pop, O. (2024). Family resilience in a social-ecological context: Emotional difficulties and coping strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1421745        [ Links ]

Von Backström, M. (2015). Exploring family functioning from a family resilience perspective. (Master's dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family Process, 35(3), 261-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1996.00261.x        [ Links ]

Walsh, F. (2012). Family resilience: Strengths forged through adversity. In: F. Walsh (ed.) Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (4^th ed). Guilford Press.         [ Links ]

Walsh, F. (2021). Family resilience. In: M. Ungar (ed.) Multisystemic resilience: Adaptation and transformation in contexts of change. Oxford.         [ Links ]

Weiss-Gal, I. (2008). The person-in-environment approach: Professional ideology and practice of social workers in Israel. Social Work, 53(1), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/53.1.65        [ Links ]

Yang, F., Cui, S., Cai, M., Feng, F., Zhao, M., Sun, M., & Zhang, W. (2024). The experiences of family resilience in patients with permanent colostomy and their spouses: A dyadic qualitative study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 70: 102590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102590        [ Links ]

Zembylas, M. (2021). Against the psychologization of resilience: Towards an onto-political theorization of the concept and its implications for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 46(9), 1966-1977. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1711048        [ Links ]

Zhang, W., Zhou, W., Ye, M., Gao, Y., & Zhou, L. (2022). Family resilience of stroke survivors within 6 months after a first-episode stroke: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13: 968933. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.968933        [ Links ]

Zhu, P., Wu, Q., Waidley, E., Ji, Q., & Qian, M. (2024). Family resilience in a crisis: A qualitative study of family resilience in multimember infected families in the context of COVID-19. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 16(5), 741748. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001547        [ Links ]

 

 

Article received: 07/10/2024
Article accepted: 04/03/2025
Article published: 05/09/2025

 

 

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Adrian D. van Breda is Professor of Social Work at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. His primarily research focus is resilience - family, organisational and youth resilience - and the transition of young people out of alternative care. He co-authored this paper with colleague Judith Reynolds during 2024.
Judith Reynolds is a Lecturer in an Extended Degree Programme, in the Centre for Higher Education, Research, Teaching and Learning (CHERTL) at Rhodes University, South Africa. Her research interests include academic literacies, resilience and the multidimensional lives of students. She co-authored this paper with colleague Adrian van Breda in 2024.
1 The McCubbin family resilience scales (and others) can be found at https://www.mccubbinresilience.org/measures.html
2 For Master's and doctoral dissertations and theses, we have included the students' discipline and the names of the supervisors.

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Table 1 - Click to enlarge