9

Resilience and
Capacity-Building

Abstract: Resilience is generally considered to be a capacity

to act and adapt in the face of adversity or constraint, and
is the result of a complex interplay of risk and protective
factors. Initially focused on the individual, the resilience
concept and research have extended to groups such as
teams and communities. In this chapter, we examine
conceptualisations of resilience and research about the
development of individual, team and community resilience
by engaging data from three research projects in diverse
educational contexts: a community informatics project in a
regional town; teachers and their work supporting student
well-being; and a university education research team.
The chapter concludes by synthesising key implications
of resilience for understanding and building capacities in
educational settings.

Danaher, Patrick Alan, Andy Davies, Linda De

George-Walker, Janice K. Jones, Karl J. Matthews,
Warren Midgley, Catherine H. Arden, Margaret Baguley.
Contemporary Capacity-Building in Educational Contexts.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015.

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015 

P. A. Danaher et al., Contemporary Capacity-Building in Educational Contexts
© Patrick Alan Danaher, Andy Davies, Linda De George-Walker, Janice K. Jones,
Karl J. Matthews, Warren Midgley, Catherine H. Arden, Margaret Baguley 2014
 Contemporary Capacity-Building in Educational Contexts

Introduction

The term ‘resilience’ is utilised in many scientific fields, including the physi-
cal sciences (for instance, resilient metals bend instead of breaking under
strain [Campbell, 2008]) and the environmental sciences (e.g., resilient
ecological systems are those that can absorb disturbances and reorganise in
response to change [Walker et al., 2004]). In the social sciences, resilience
is commonly referred to as the characteristics and processes related to the
ability of people to ‘bounce back’ or recover after adversity (Smith et al.,
2013). With such a wide range of applications, the term ‘resilience’ has been
described as confusing (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Reid & Botterill, 2013;
Walker et al., 2004), and Rose (2007) warned that ‘resilience is in danger of
becoming a vacuous buzzword from overuse and ambiguity’ (p. 384).
Yet the contribution of the resilience research, especially as it relates
to the social sciences and education, cannot be underestimated in
prompting a shift from deficit- to strengths-based models for under-
standing and developing individual, group and system capacities for
thriving in challenging circumstances (see Berkes & Ross, 2013; Carmeli
et al., 2013). In this chapter, we explore further the concept of resilience
for individual, team and community capacity-building by interrogat-
ing data from three research projects in diverse educational contexts:
a community informatics project in a regional town; teachers and
their work supporting student well-being; and a university education
research team. The chapter consists of the following three sections:
 A selected literature review that examines the meanings of resilience
and a conceptual framework that articulates the protective factors
associated with individual, team and community resilience
 An examination of the conceptualisation of resilience and
protective factors associated with individual, team and community
resilience in the three selected data sets
 Concluding implications of the analysis of the data sets and
resilience for understanding and enhancing contemporary
approaches to capacity-building in educational contexts.

Literature review and conceptual framework

Recent reviews and conceptual analyses of the notion of resilience

have identified three core elements as fundamental to understanding

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Resilience and Capacity-Building 

resilience, the first two being precursors to or antecedents of resilience:

(a) the experience of hardship, risk or adversity that threatens to pro-
duce a negative outcome; and (b) the availability of conditions, assets
or resources to respond to the adversity. The third element refers to the
consequences of resilience: (c) positive adaption in which the negative
outcome is avoided and functioning is better than had been expected
in the context of the adversity (Berkes & Ross, 2013; Fletcher & Sarkar,
2013; Luthar, 2006; Windle, 2011). These core elements of resilience are
reflected in the following sample of current definitions of individual,
team and community resilience:
[Individual] resilience is the process of effectively negotiating, adapting to
or managing significant sources of stress or trauma. Assets and resources
within the individual, their life and environment facilitate this capacity for
adaption and ‘bouncing back’ in the face of adversity. Across the lifespan
the experience of resilience will vary. (Windle, 2011, p. 163)
[Team resilience is] a team’s belief that it can absorb and cope with strain,
as well as the team’s capacity to cope, recover and adjust positively to dif-
ficulties. (Carmeli et al., 2013, p. 149)
[Community resilience] refers to the capacity of community members to
engage in projects of coordinated action within the context of their com-
munity despite events and structures that constrain such projects. (Brown
& Kulig, as cited in Hegney et al., 2008, p. 19)

While there are obvious synergies across these definitions, they also
reflect two issues in conceptualising resilience that remain unresolved.
The first issue is whether positive adaption is best characterised as a
return to stability, recovery or transformation. Fletcher and Sarkar
(2013), in their review of individual resilience, noted that recovery is to
be distinguished from resilience, as the former involves the experience of
a period of non-normal levels of functioning, whereas resilience entails
maintaining a normal state through the experience of the adversity.
Berkes and Ross (2013) observed that it is not always desirable for com-
munities to return to or maintain an original state through the experi-
ence of adversity, and they argued that positive adaption should instead
be considered along a continuum from stability to transformation.
The second issue is whether resilience is experienced only in the con-
text of adversity or hardship. This has been contested on the grounds
that it excludes consideration of the capacity to thrive in situations of
non-adverse challenges that still demand a resilient response, such as
that which might be experienced in dealing with complex day-to-day

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Contemporary Capacity-Building in Educational Contexts

stresses or demanding projects, and it also does not acknowledge posi-

tive life events that might draw on the capacity for resilience – for exam-
ple, a new job with additional and significant responsibilities (Fletcher
& Sarkar, 2013; Windle, 2011). Accordingly, in conceptualising resilience
some scholars refer to the experience of change or challenge rather than
adversity (see, e.g., Berkes & Ross, 2013).
While some researchers have sought clarity on the conceptualisation
of adversity and the nature of positive adaption required for resilience,
other research on resilience has focused on the protective factors asso-
ciated with the capacities for individuals, teams and communities to
adapt positively to change, challenge or hardship. From this perspective,
resilience-focused approaches to capacity-building draw on positive
psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and social capital
perspectives (Putnam, 1993, 2000) that aim to identify, understand and
develop social capital and protective factors in the form of resources,
conditions and assets that buffer individuals, teams and communities in
the presence of hardship and risk.
As is evident in Table 9.1, protective factors are manifested in different
ways for individual, team and community domains (Chan, 1998), yet sev-
eral protective factor themes are apparent across these domains, includ-
ing the presence of coping skills; a positive outlook; a sense of purpose;
a learning orientation; a sense of agency and self-determination; positive
interpersonal communication; social connectivity, support and inclusion;
effective leadership; and setting quality, including resource availability.
Before we turn our attention to analysing the data sets in terms of
conceptualising resilience and protective factors, we acknowledge the
undesirable consequence of compilations of protective resources, condi-
tions and assets like that in Table 9.1 – that resilience might appear as a
static characteristic that can be achieved by following a ‘tried and true’
recipe (Windle, 2011). We do not adhere to this simplistic additive view
of resilience and instead concur with Fletcher and Sarkar (2013) and
Hegney et al. (2008) that resilience is a complex and systematic proc-
ess that is reciprocal and synergistic in nature as individuals and groups
interact with one another and within and with their contexts; resilience
is therefore always dynamic and co-evolving. While noting this potential
and unintended consequence, we argue that seeking to identify protective
factors in different domains and settings is valuable for understanding
the synergy and diversity associated with resilience and capacity-building
for individuals, teams and communities in educational contexts.

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Resilience and Capacity-Building 

Table 9.1 Resources, conditions and assets associated with resilience

Individual resilience Team resilience Community resilience

Intrinsic factors 
Team autonomy 
Collective agency and


Self-efficacy 
Collective efficacy empowerment

Self-control 
Group accountability 
Social capital, networks

Relational connectivity and partnerships

Mindfulness

Perceived social support 
People–place

Mood clarity

Trust connections

Self-esteem

Shared vision and sense of 
Shared purpose

Purpose in life

Optimism purpose 
Effective leadership

Group norms and values 
Community champions

Active coping

Shared leadership 
Coping ability
Social and contextual 
Transformational leadership 
Proactive approach
factors 
Coping efficacy 
Knowledge and skills

Strategic planning 
Action orientation

Positive

Perseverance 
Problem-solving ability
relationships

Flexibility 
Positive outlook

Closeness in

Positive team attitude and 
Effective communication
relationships

Milieu quality climate 
Orientation towards

Prosocial interactions reflection and learning
(e.g., home, school,

Frequent, open and positive 
Sense of belonging,
community)
communication inclusion and

Constructive expression of togetherness
positive and negative emotions 
Sense of community
(emotional carrying capacity) 
Environment quality

Team feedback 
Infrastructure and

Orientation towards learning support
and mastery 
Diverse and innovative

Group identity economy

Group cohesion and
commitment

Access to adequate resources

Note: Individual resilience factors sourced from Miller-Lewis et al. (2013) and Smith et al.
(2013); team resilience factors sourced from Carmeli et al. (2013), Morgan et al. (2013),
Salanova et al. (2013) and Stephens et al. (2013); and community resilience factors sourced
from Buikstra et al. (2010), Hegney et al. (2008), Kulig et al. (2008) and Norris et al. (2008).

Selected data sets

A community-based adult learning project in

a regional town
This subsection of the chapter explores the concept of resilience in the
context of a community informatics (Gurstein, 2000) or community

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Contemporary Capacity-Building in Educational Contexts

technology project in a small country town in regional south-west

Queensland, Australia. The data for this subsection were drawn from a
phenomenographic study of participants’ conceptions and experiences
of learning in the context of their involvement in the project. In keeping
with some of the resilience literature cited earlier, the author has made
use of social capital theory to inform her analysis of individual, team and
community resilience.
Factors associated with individual resilience highlighted in Table 9.1
were evident in the data from this study. Individual resilience is seen to
be underpinned by a strong emphasis on relational connectivity linked to
a sense of community (including people–place connections), a sense of
belonging and inclusion and the personal rewards generated by helping
others, in combination with a healthy dose of personal efficacy and an
orientation towards learning. The individuals’ abilities to solve problems
and/or to problematise in response to challenging situations, events or
circumstances also came through strongly in the data. The apparent link
between making a contribution as a volunteer (altruism and personal
efficacy) and individual learning was particularly noteworthy, whereby
participating in the organisation’s activities appeared to afford both
motivation and opportunity for learning.
In terms of social capital theory, links could be seen between indi-
vidual resilience factors and the ability of individuals to draw on their
‘knowledge and identity resources’ (Balatti & Falk, 2001, p. 5) in the
process of ‘combination and exchange’ (pp. 4–5) that afford learning
that both draws on and builds social capital. In this respect, the author
concurs with Berkes and Ross (2013) that individual resilience should
be conceptualised with reference to the experiences of change, risk and
challenge in addition to adversity, and that such a conceptualisation
suggests a more appropriate definition of individual resilience than that
proposed by Windle (2011) with regard to reflecting these social capital
perspectives.
Factors associated with team resilience highlighted in Table 9.1 were
also evident in the data. Team resilience is seen as being linked to a
strong sense of group identity and shared sense of (altruistic) purpose.
The importance of a positive team attitude and climate is highlighted, as
are effective leadership, democratic values and practices, a sense of col-
lective efficacy and a service learning culture where reciprocal, mutual
social learning (instrumental, communicative and transformative
[Mezirow, 1991]) are afforded and valued. Despite there being a strong

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Resilience and Capacity-Building 

sense of the organisation’s vulnerability in terms of its limited physical

and financial resources, there was nonetheless a sense of resilience that
permeated by virtue of the organisation’s evident survival over a number
of years in the face of adversity.
In social capital terms, there appeared to be a strong sense of ‘histo-
ricity’ and ‘futuricity’ that contribute to team organisational resilience
(Balatti & Falk, 2001), providing a sense of continuity. Importantly, indi-
vidual resilience factors appeared to be in dynamic interplay with team
resilience factors, which was also supported in the findings of an earlier
study into resilience in the same community as this study (Hegney et al.,
2008), where ‘individual resilience was found to be both a product of,
and a contributor to, community resilience and vice-versa’ (p. 91).
The data indicated that community resilience, like social capital, is a
dynamic phenomenon, a ‘virtuous cycle’ that both affords and is afforded
by a strong sense of connection to place and a feeling of being socially
connected to others and to what is going on in the community (linked
to a sense of belonging and inclusion). In social capital terms, there was
some resonance here with the concepts of bonding and bridging ties
(Putnam, 1993, 2000).
Importantly, this sense of community is more than just individuals
feeling included and connected; active engagement and participation in
community life are seen to contribute to a sense of individual and collec-
tive agency that seems to be underpinned by a valuing of ‘the common
good’, reciprocity and sharing. Interestingly, it is not just about being
connected to the local community; respondents alluded to the need to
feel connected to what is going on ‘out there’ and ‘in the world’. This can
be linked to the concept of ‘Externality’ in social capital theory (Loechel
& Kilpatrick, 2001).
In terms of infrastructure and resources linked to community resil-
ience, it seems that various forms of ‘interactional infrastructure’ (Loechel
& Kilpatrick, 2001), such as meeting places, hubs and technologies, are
important affordances for fostering and sustaining the positive social
interactions and communications, sharing and collective action that
characterise resilient communities. The link between social capital and
the identified resilience factors in the context of community informatics
was highlighted by Simpson (2005) in her research into sustainability
in community technology projects in rural Australian towns. Simpson
found that ‘[h]igh levels of social capital are usually indicated by com-
munity members who feel a strong sense of belonging, a willingness to

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Contemporary Capacity-Building in Educational Contexts

participate in community activities, and a commitment to actively work

towards the future well-being of their community’ (p. 103).
Finally in this subsection, there was some indication in the data of an
appreciation that different forms of ‘community learning’ (McLachlan &
Arden, 2009) are associated with the aforementioned resilience factors,
including individuals learning about the community, its activities and
services, and so on (linked to social connectivity and support), recipro-
cal or mutual learning (linked to sharing information, knowledge and
skills) that is both incidental and purposive and inherent in individual
and collective agency and finally an orientation towards reflective learn-
ing (linked to personal and collective capacity-building). In this respect,
the author agrees with Berkes and Ross (2013), who maintained that
communities can proactively ‘develop resilience through capacity build-
ing and social learning’ (p. 13).

Teachers supporting student mental well-being

In this subsection of the chapter, we turn to the school setting, a context
that is well-acquainted with the notion and study of resilience, with links
identified between resilience and student behavioural and academic
outcomes, teacher well-being and efficacy, and effective school teams
and systems (Fleming et al., 2013; Sapienza & Masten, 2011). The data set
referred to in this subsection was drawn from a phenomenological, quali-
tative, research study (De George-Walker, 2010) in which several teachers
were interviewed about their experiences and confidence in supporting
the social, emotional and mental well-being of their students, which was
defined according to the World Health Organization (2010) definition of
mental health as ‘a state of well-being in which an individual realises his
or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work
productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her commu-
nity’ (paragraph 2). It is not being argued here that resilience and social,
emotional and mental well-being are two different terms for the same
underlying construct; however, there is some overlap and teachers in the
study did address matters pertaining to resilience in their interviews.
Clearly evident in the data from this study were the teachers’ concerns
about the resilience of their students – that is, the hardship or challenge
that some of their students faced, their limited capacity for resilience
in the context of this adversity and the negative implications for their
academic and developmental outcomes. The teachers identified a range

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Resilience and Capacity-Building 

of intrinsic risk factors that impacted on students adversely, including

mental health problems such as conduct disorder, depression and anxi-
ety, but also social and emotional issues such as poor self-concept, low
self-esteem, limited coping and problem-solving skills, a lack of social
and relationship skills and limited self-understanding, self-responsibility
and self-discipline. They further identified a number of social and
contextual risk factors that placed their students at risk, including poor
quality home environments, dysfunctional family relationships and low
socioeconomic status. Many of the factors that they identified were the
antithesis of the protective factors listed in Table 9.1. Overall, the views
of the teachers in this study reflected a broad range of conditions of
both challenge and hardship that threatened negative academic and
developmental outcomes for their students, thus suggesting the need for
a broader view of the notion of adversity in conceptualising resilience
even at the individual level.
Aligned with a view of the systematic, reciprocal and dynamic nature
of resilience, the teachers in this study recognised the importance of both
individual level interventions and whole school community approaches
to building student resilience and well-being. The teachers also identified
a number of resilience-building features of whole school communities
that correspond with many of the team and community protective factors
listed in Table 9.1, including a common school philosophy and language
(shared vision and sense of purpose); commitment and involvement by
all within the school community from the administration through all
levels of teaching and support staff (sense of togetherness and inclusion);
and shared responsibility (personal and collective agency, empowerment
and accountability).
Against the backdrop of a whole school community approach, the
teachers in this study identified five key roles and responsibilities for
teachers with regard to supporting student well-being that connect well
to the findings of resilience. Firstly, teachers recognised their ongoing
role in identifying and referring for intervention and support those
students who were at risk and who did not bounce back from adversity.
The other four roles elicited by the teachers were proactive rather than
reactive and were aimed towards preventing or minimising risk for their
students and building their capacity for resilience. These four roles were:
facilitating social connectivity and support between the home and the
school; creating a sense of togetherness and inclusion in their classrooms
by establishing a positive outlook, climate of trust, responsibility, support

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Contemporary Capacity-Building in Educational Contexts

and encouragement; effectively leading or championing well-being ini-

tiatives; and teaching students the social and emotional skills that build
resilience, such as problem-solving, self-awareness, self-management,
relationship management and effective communication.

A university education research team

In this subsection of the chapter, we extend the notion of individual resil-
ience to consider the concept of co-constructed resilience in the context
of a team, whereby each team member’s individual personal resilience
combines to generate an overall team resilience. The data in this subsec-
tion were drawn from a study exploring how a university research team
builds its capacity by managing individual and collective knowledge.
The study methodology was an (auto)ethnographic, qualitative, research
case study, with semi-structured interviews extending observations of
the team in action, enabling a view of the team knowledge management
practices and perspectives on how team resilience was influenced.
The data in this study highlighted that, whilst each individual
was working on tasks and goals related solely to her or his individual
employment role, the nine individuals also devoted a percentage of
their discretionary time to working together as a research team so as to
progress team tasks simultaneously alongside their individual workload
requirements. As a result, each individual faced both personal and team
resilience challenges. However, the productivity and results of the team
collaboration and the co-constructed resilience exceeded what the
team members, as individuals working alone, would have realistically
achieved.
In terms of the team’s shared sense of purpose, all members of the
team were professionally interested in sharing their vision on the
research topic of capacity-building. The quality and availability of team
resources were managed through democratic discussions, with multiple
workload fronts being progressed during the course of the study, includ-
ing organising a conference, writing academic papers, publication of a
research book and reporting progress to the team’s funding body. These
team projects and plans were in addition to the respective workload of
each individual, which was testament to the efficacy in coping of indi-
viduals and team alike.
Despite the high workload and busy tempo of both individuals and the
team, a positive team attitude and climate prevailed. All team members

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Resilience and Capacity-Building 

exhibited signs of workload stress during the study observation period –

for instance, by rushing in late and flustered to a team meeting owing
to being overwhelmed by other work priorities. However, the team
continued to offer a supportive and constructive environment to all
team members, which made the monthly team meetings an open and
motivating experience. This positive feedback climate assisted in nurtur-
ing the personal resilience and in enhancing the capacity-building of all
individuals, and hence helped to generate the resilience of the team as a
whole to overcome adversity.
In this particular team context, the individuals tended towards trans-
formational leadership and autonomous task progression. The team
attempted to meet monthly as a whole team to discuss progress, priori-
ties and directions as a group, and also to offer assistance and advice to
one another with respect to each individual’s activities. Although it
was rare that all team members could attend the same meeting (owing
to workload-related time clashes), the interpersonal relationships and
consequent connectivity kept all members informed, so that all mem-
bers were effectively included in decisions. Despite this environment of
workload adversity, with all individuals juggling individual and team
projects, the overall team resilience was such that the desired goals were
met, and the team achieved (and in some cases exceeded) their required
key performance indicator outcomes. This ‘performance under pressure’,
also evidenced in the past career performances of the individuals, dem-
onstrated individual team members’ personal resilience factors such as
self-efficacy, optimism and active coping, combined with their common
team orientation towards learning and development.
Therefore the synergistic effects of each individual playing her or his
part with regard to the team goals resulted in a definite capacity-building
effect, particularly for the team’s knowledge management capabilities.
It would be almost superhuman for the individuals within the team to
have produced such an output if they had been working separately, as
individually they would lack the same diversity of skill and knowledge
strengths, and they would also be likely to falter without the nurturing
empathy and support of the team. In this way, the whole of a team can be
much greater than the sum of its individual parts, in that their resilience
to overcome challenges and their resultant productivity are multiplied.
The data from this study suggested that it was the positive and syn-
ergistic combination of each individual’s personal resilience factors,
as summarised in Table 9.1, that co-constructed team resilience. This

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Contemporary Capacity-Building in Educational Contexts

study showed that, within the team context, an individual’s innate

personal resilience was of great value to the overall team performance;
however, and perhaps even more vitally, through the individuals work-
ing cooperatively and cohesively together, team resilience was generated
and nurtured. This co-construction had a compounding effect on each
individual’s innate resilience levels, inspiring and supporting these indi-
viduals to achieve heightened productivity and in doing so to strengthen
their own and their colleagues’ capacities.

Conclusion

In this chapter, our analysis of the selected data sets (a community

informatics project in a regional town, teachers supporting their
students’ mental well-being and a university education research team)
has demonstrated that the concept of resilience was clearly valuable for
understanding and enhancing contemporary approaches to the capacity-
building of individuals, teams and communities in educational contexts.
Yet also apparent in our analysis was that original conceptualisations of
the nature of adversity and positive adaption developed for understand-
ing individual resilience might require some adaption towards a more
comprehensive understanding and building of individual, group and
system resilience, such that change and non-adverse challenges in addi-
tion to hardship are associated with risk, and that positive adaptations
might range from stability to transformation.
The multiplicative, reciprocal and synergistic character of resilience,
and in particular the protective factors, were evident across the three
data sets and highlighted that resilience can be co-constructed so that the
total resilience and social capital available to a team and a community are
greater than the sum of their parts. We acknowledge that much remains
to be learned about the synergistic effects of protective factors but, as
noted earlier in the chapter, we caution against a one-off, cookbook
approach to developing resilient individuals, teams and communities.
Resilience is clearly a complex process that might change contextually
and temporally – just because an individual, team or community might
be resilient in one situation or environment, or during a certain period
of time, does not mean that she, he or it will be resilient in all situations
all the time (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Hegney et al., 2008).

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015
 Resilience and Capacity-Building 

Given that adversity or challenge is usually related to social and rela-

tional factors that can be difficult to change (e.g., stressful events, natural
disasters or socioeconomic disadvantage), and that these factors tend to
co-occur, creating a cumulative stress effect (Miller-Lewis et al., 2013),
we argue that a continued focus on the protective resources, conditions
and assets that are associated with developing resilience offers the oppor-
tunity to move towards strengths-based approaches to building capacity.
As Berkes and Ross (2013) noted in relation to community resilience,
but which is also arguably applicable to individual and team resilience,
‘Communities do not control all of the conditions that affect them, but
they have the ability to change many of the conditions that can increase
resilience’ (p. 13).

Suggestions for further reading

Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J., & Sanderson, K. (2013). Building
on the positives: A psychometric review and critical analysis of
the construct of Psychological Capital. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 86(3), 348–370.
Kawachi, I., Takao, S., & Subramanian, S. V. (Eds.). (2013). Global
perspectives on social capital and health. New York, NY: Springer.
Maclean, K., Cuthill, M., & Ross, H. (2014). Six attributes of social
resilience. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(1),
144–156. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2013.763774
Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., & Pedrotti, J. T. (Eds.). (2011). Positive
psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human strengths
(2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back.
London, UK: Headline Publishing Group.

DOI: 10.1057/9781137374578.0015