Embracing a Kinder Model for Coaching Resilience: Part One – the Resilience Cycle

Introduction

Defining resilience in a way that finds consensus is a task that has eluded researchers since research on this topic began (Meredith et al., 2011). It is agreed that resilience is a response to adversity that enables the individual to resist, recover or reconfigure and continue or improve their life trajectory (Ivtzan et al., 2016; Layne et al., 2008; Reivich & Shatté, 2002). These researchers aimed to find a one-size-fits-all approach to defining, operationalizing and measuring resilience (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Oshio et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2008). However, despite resilience being the topic of numerous research projects, no consensus has been found on a definition of resilience (Coutu, 2003; Meredith et al., 2011; Shaikh & Kauppi, 2010), a list of risk and protective factors that lead to increased resilience (Gillham et al., 2007; Hauser et al., 2006; Wagnild & Young, 1993), a way to measure resilience (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Oshio et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2008) or an intervention plan to improve it (Chmitorz et al., 2018; Gillham et al., 2007; Neenan, 2018).

Another aspect of resilience that has found a degree of consensus is the idea of an outcome (Garmezy & Nuechterlein, 1972). Having a specific date for when a post-test recovery measurement could be taken would make a researcher’s life easier. However, this approach is problematic due to the varying nature and timing of adversity. Even a situation that affected everyone, such as a pandemic, is not equal in the way that it impacted people, and so was more adverse for some than others, due to some suffering bereavement and others not (British Medical Association, 2023).

While there is agreement on the necessity of adversity and the usefulness of the outcome date, there is much debate around the journey from adversity to outcome. Early researchers described this journey in terms of risk and protective factors, which were either individual (Masten et al., 1991), community (Walsh, 2016) or societal (Blaxter, 2010; Nettleton, 2013). Later, researchers described cognitive, emotional, and behavioural processes (Lines et al., 2020). These processes denote a somewhat slower recovery than the protective factors but can possibly lead to eventually experiencing post-traumatic growth, and so operating on a higher level than they would have without the adversity occurring (Noltemeyer & Bush, 2013).

All of these models suggest that recovery is the preferable option; however, the main onus is on the individual to effect that recovery, which is a responsibility that can feel like an added burden (Held, 2004). Attempting to resist a drop in resilience may also lead to a version of resilience that dysfunctionally exists just one step away from burnout (Shah, 2022).

Bearing these issues in mind, it is clear that resilience is a topic that needs further research to clarify its construct. This study seeks to provide that clarity by exploring the experiences of resilience in a group of people who face an ongoingly challenging life – that of mothering a child with a significant disability such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

ASD is a biological, cognitive, and behavioural difference that is diagnosed following observation of behavioural features. It is a lifelong developmental disorder that affects both male, female, and non-binary people of all levels of IQ (Fletcher-Watson & Happé, 2019). Currently, it is not known what causes ASD with no clear biological, neurological, or genetic aetiology being found (Lange, 2012; Mackowiak, 2000).

When a child is diagnosed, the incurable and lifelong nature of ASD is emphasized, with parents feeling that “many doors were suddenly closed to the[ir] child” (Kaufman, 2014, p. 1). This adds to the demands of dealing with challenging behaviour such as self-injury, injury to others, damage to homes, tantrums, or complex rituals which interfere with daily life (Bessette Gorlin et al., 2016; Bouma & Schweitzer, 1990; Lee et al., 2008) and lack of social interactions (Ludlow et al., 2011). It has been shown that the level of distress observed in parents of children with ASD is positively correlated with the child’s levels of challenging behaviour (Allik et al., 2006) and negatively related to their language functionality (Ello & Donovan, 2005). In addition to challenging behaviour, ASD has several comorbid challenges, such as learning difficulties and visual stress (previously known as Meares-Irlen syndrome (Fletcher-Watson & Happé, 2019). This can make the school years challenging as teachers struggle to teach in the way that children with ASD can learn (Beardon, 2021). The problem exists partly because the Local Education Authority is responsible for providing appropriate education, but this does not mean they will provide the most optimal education experience for the child (Sharpe & Baker, 2007). Recent research by Brede et al. (2017) has shown that children with ASD are at higher risk of being excluded from school, with one in five receiving a fixed-term school exclusion and one in twenty being permanently excluded.

Despite these challenges, some studies have found parents of children with ASD to be resilient (Bayat, 2007; Beighton & Wills, 2017; García-Lopez et al., 2016; Greeff & van der Walt, 2010; Hastings et al., 2005; Kapp & Brown, 2011). This demonstrates that this group of people would be an ideal group to demonstrate resilience.

This study focuses on the following research questions and is part of a larger study of these questions (see Bishop, 2025, for part 2). The results of these questions have been divided into two articles so that they can be presented clearly and thoroughly while considering the practical application for coaches and other helping professionals.

Firstly, there is an overarching question; this was created as broadly as possible to highlight the goals of the study, to give room for the sub-questions, and also to provide a broad scope for the initial interview schedule (Janesick, 2000):

To what extent, do mothers of children with ASD, experience resilience, given the challenges and stigmas of parenting their child?

Then there are three sub-questions:

1. What does the word resilience mean to mothers that have children with ASD?

2. How does being a parent of a child with ASD affect the mother’s resilience?

3. In what ways do mothers of children with ASD demonstrate resilience?

Methodology

This study used one cohort of people as a quasi-case study in the hope that a model of resilience would emerge that could be used as a basis for further research. The model needed to be situated in an everyday real-world experience to have ‘usefulness to practice’ in enhancing resilience (Robson, 2002). Therefore, the area of exploration for this study was rooted in the processes of thoughts, feelings and behaviours of the participants and the meanings that they attributed to their experiences. Furthermore, the study design required a methodology that went further than a measurement of wellbeing or the provision of a list of risk and protective factors because that would have reiterated the current conversation on the topic. An additional requirement was that the method should provide an analysis that went beyond a collection of individual accounts to examine concepts and interpretations that uncovered what these mothers were thinking, feeling, or doing that would demonstrate what was behind their reactions to their situation. In providing a theory of resilience for these mothers, it was hoped to enable others to use those same concepts or techniques to improve their resilience.

Design

This study uses a qualitative methodology with a constructivist grounded theory method (Charmaz, 2014). The data was collected using semi-structured interviews so that the participants had ample opportunity to give their views on the questions asked. This approach was chosen to allow for the possibility that the study’s findings would enable the creation of a new conceptual model of resilience. It was hoped that by focusing on what is happening in the participant’s life that new characteristics of resilience would emerge that would provide clarity on the elements of resilience that have been missing from previous models.

Participants and Recruitment

Following ethical approval, seventeen participants were recruited for the study, fourteen using purposive sampling and three using theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2014). Recruitment ceased once the saturation point in data collection was reached (Charmaz, 2014). The following criteria provided the criteria for purposive sampling:

They must be a mother (either biological, adoptive or step) of a child with a formal diagnosis of ASD and for their child to have held that diagnosis for more than five years. The child should also be living with them in the family home rather than in a residential care home or boarding school. Also, the parents need to be at least 18 years of age.

The severity of ASD was not included or excluded as a recruitment criterion, as often an indication of severity is not given as part of the ASD diagnostic process. Additionally, there is nowhere in the literature that states that a child with a diagnosis of mild ASD is any less of a challenge to parents than having a child with severe ASD.

For the theoretical sampling, the same criteria were used as it was felt that this was sufficient to enable clarity on the conceptual model that was emerging. The mothers were aged 25 – 62, and all lived in the UK. The nationalities of these women were primarily white British, but there was also one North American, one Bulgarian and one Asian mother in the group. The ages of their children ranged from 7 years old to 25 years old. Ten of the mothers had only one child with ASD; One mother had two children with ASD. Two mothers had one child diagnosed with ASD but were waiting for a diagnosis for a second child, and one mother had three children with ASD. Seven of the mothers were married, one was divorced, one was widowed, one was in a non-cohabiting relationship, and four were single

Recruitment was completed through social media channels, including support groups for parents of children with ASD. There was an element of snowball sampling (Coolican, 2009) as some parents were recruited via word of mouth from earlier participants.

Data collection and analysis

Volunteers who answered the advertisement were screened to ensure they fit the recruitment criteria. Then, the necessary information sheets and consent forms were shared and signed. The interviews commenced, which were recorded and transcribed to enable data analysis. The interview schedule was designed to provide opportunities for the participants to contribute their thoughts and ideas around the research questions for this study. Therefore, at the beginning of the interviews, it was important to establish a strong rapport with the participants to encourage a spirit of collaboration and for them to feel comfortable in openly sharing their stories (Van Nieuwerburgh, 2014). Once rapport was established, demographics were collected to reiterate the recruitment criteria and ensure that the participants fulfilled the criteria. After this, the main part of the interview commenced, which lasted for around an hour. The questions in the interview schedule were designed to be open-ended but specific enough to encourage sharing in the areas of interest to the study. They also emphasized meanings, perspectives and experiences over other types of information. As the interviews progressed, the questions were refined to use the most effective ones. The interview process continued until the saturation point, which was the moment when the participant’s answers did not add any further insights or anything new to the theory that was emerging (Charmaz, 2014).

The method of data analysis was informed by Charmaz (2014) constructivist grounded theory method. A pilot interview was conducted, plus five more interviews in the first round before initial coding started by applying gerunds, which described the actions and processes that occurred. Coding in this way, allows the researcher to gain familiarity with the data by interacting with it and closely studying each statement to extract the maximum meaning from each part (Charmaz, 2014). Focused coding followed this to take forward in the analysis of statements deemed relevant to the study research questions. This meant that only codes relating to the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of the mothers were taken forward. Memos were also written throughout to enable the decision-making process to be documented and to give an outlet to the creativity of the researcher in an unstructured way. Reflective memos were used to capture thoughts, feelings and emotions that occurred during the coding process. Memos also allowed conceptual ideas to percolate when participant comments resonated with existing theories or when new ideas came to the fore. Once concepts were derived from that initial data via focused coding, the interviews were then compared to each other for similarities and differences as part of the axial coding. After this had occurred, another five participants were recruited, and the process was repeated. Following this, another four participants were recruited with the coding process being repeated. It was at this point that no new comments were emerging and that a picture of the final coding structure including theoretical codes was created. Once this stage was completed a final two interviews were conducted to check the validity of the theoretical codes. After this, one of the first participants was re-recruited to take part in a check-back interview (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). She was requested to sort the sub-categories into the theoretical codes and to ensure that the final result was congruent with her own experience.

Findings

Seventeen participants took place in semi-structured interviews to uncover the participants’ views of these questions:

To what extent, do mothers of children with ASD, experience resilience, given the challenges and stigmas of parenting their child?

Additionally, three sub-questions formed the structure of the research process:

1. What does the word resilience mean to mothers that have children with ASD?

2. How does being a parent of a child with ASD affect the mother’s resilience?

3. In what ways do mothers of children with ASD demonstrate resilience?

After the data analysis was completed, the following coding structure emerged:

Research question one

Looking at the first theoretical code, ‘Resilience Defined,’ it seems that the problems that researchers have had in the past in defining resilience are also shared by the participants as they either said they didn’t know what resilience meant, or they found it hard to describe but had a go, they used analogies, or they said that they didn’t like the whole construct. An example of an analogy was given by Fiona (pseudonyms are used for all the following quotations)

“I think it is that ability to go through something and experience the ups and downs of life but be able to ride that wave and get to the top of it and not fall out of your boat and just keep going and then get over it.” Fiona.

A participant who did not like the idea of resilience put it like this:

“I think the problem with [resilience] is it puts it all back onto the individual and it becomes yet another thing that you can measure somebody by, and they can fail. You know it is because they are not resilient enough, they aren’t doing the right things to make themselves be able to cope with these hard situations.” Alicia.

Comments like this demonstrate the need for a new model of resilience that is somewhat kinder to people facing hardship.

There was a general understanding among the participants that resilience was a response to a challenge:

“Being able to bounce back from a setback in your life… you know it could be anything couldn’t it… but I think it is how you react to something that has an adverse effect on you.” Rhianna.

The comments made very much reflected the current conversation around resilience being about mental toughness and resistance:

“…people who can withstand anything you know like just keep going” Eliza.

The last part of the ‘Resilience Defined’ code was the place where some of the comments made by the participants, drilled down a little more into the component parts of resilience, and so broke new ground. Monica introduced the idea of preparing and adapting:

“So, for me resilience is the ability to pick yourself back up again but also to prepare yourself for things that are going on as well and to be able to kind of adapt and move forward.” Monica.

Bianca was the first to talk about the importance of resting:

"I see it as a mixture of moving forward and a mixture of just resting".

Olivia talked about the importance of allowing ourselves to feel all of our feelings and not just the happy ones:

“Life is about ups and downs, things we plan and things we don’t and who knows whether those unplanned things that we totally didn’t want at the time are bad, sometimes in the end they turn out to be great, so why would we resist them. So just powering on regardless is not my idea of resilience.”

These findings emphasize a more fluid model of resilience, one that allows the individual time to acknowledge the challenge and adapt. This view is the exact opposite of the view of resilience, which some participants felt was problematic.

Research question two

The second of the research questions asks how does being a parent of a child with ASD affect the mother’s levels of resilience? This question looked at what challenges being a parent of a child with ASD brought to their lives and what they immediately did about those challenges. The stories that were told were detailed, heroic accounts of times in their lives when they had kept their children safe and well despite the behaviours associated with ASD. This research question has three theoretical codes that relate to the way that the mother’s resilience was challenged. Firstly, the theoretical code ‘Adversity’ is used to describe the challenges faced by the mothers, and secondly, the theoretical code ‘Adversity Management’ describes what the mothers did amid the adversity. In all cases, the stories that were told demonstrated that the mothers triumphed in keeping their children safe and well and that the mothers knew exactly how best to handle the situations they faced. This meant that one of the findings was that everyone is resilient and that there was no such thing as non-resilient people. The third theoretical code is 'Adversity Aftermath. The key finding was that in all cases, the mothers dealt with the challenge first, and then only afterwards did they allow themselves to experience their own feelings. Not once when their child was in danger, or experiencing a meltdown, or being in trouble with others, did the mother stand and cry about it. They always dealt with the crisis first, with the tears coming later. Due to the separate nature of the challenge first and response later, it felt appropriate to create the first theoretical code for this question as adversity, followed by the second theoretical code of ‘Adversity Management’ and then following on with ‘Adversity Aftermath’. These separate areas occur in order in the accounts given by these women and so have been coded as distinct from each other to demonstrate this.

Looking first at the adversities discussed by the participants, they were struggling with getting a diagnosis, struggling to get the correct support, dealing with challenging behaviour, dealing with other people’s negative reactions, and dealing with the physical challenges of ASD. The most apparent aspect of this list is that most of these challenges are outside the control of either the mother or the child.

Several other mothers echoed Nina’s comment on the support available:

“…the problem is there is no support for the autistic children in England, no support at all…… It shouldn’t be like that as soon as the child is diagnosed, the GP must take care of the child and provide necessary therapy, behaviour… cognitive behavioural, this is whatever they do sensory or whatever help the child, and it should be provided immediately. The children shouldn’t be waiting years to be diagnosed. And after they are diagnosed… what happens?… Nothing only the diagnosis on a piece of paper. That’s all no help at all it’s embarrassing, actually it’s really bad.” Nina.

There was also a high number of these mothers who engaged with the tribunal process to attempt to get the support their child needed:

“I wasn’t prepared to keep on having lots of these awful situations at school where he is being restrained and locked in rooms and going through internal exclusions or being called naughty or lazy or whatever else, I sort of hung out and went to tribunal to get a school who I thought would understand him and be able to meet his needs.” Lydia.

The next theoretical code was ‘Adversity Management’ which referred to the ways that the mothers dealt with the challenges. These were divided into cognitive, practical and social tasks that enabled the mothers to deal with the challenges of raising their children.

Bianca described the process of rescuing her child, who had climbed on top of a wall that overlooked a squash court:

Her first reaction was cognitive:

"I thought how do I get to him without alarming him so that he doesn’t jump." Bianca.

Her next reaction was practical:

“I just ran fast as silently as I could fast but gently no sound from him. I put my hand in front of him so that he couldn’t fall and just took him down and sort of held him.”

The other task was social, and involved getting others to help:

" I said to my partner, you know find out where the quickest way to get out is I said just quickly go while I’m holding him, and he found out and came back and we carried him straight outside." Georgia.

The next theoretical code is ‘Adversity Aftermath’ and deals with the immediate aftermath of the adversity. This involved three axial codes: emotional response, social response, and reconnecting with the child.

It was striking that these reactions to adversity only occurred once the adversity had been managed. The emotional response involved feeling depressed, crying, feeling stressed or worried, feeling wiped out and exhausted, feeling guilty and shaking.

“So, I just walked out with him and then cried when I got home sort of like, I can’t do this anymore, why have I got to have a child like this?” Petra.

The social response involves speaking to a trusted person to about the difficulties:

“So, a lot of ranting to my family I think got me through that one,” Joanna

Lastly, the mothers described how they reconnected with their children after everyone had calmed down:

“I try to do it by just giving her a little bit more of my time… and she will want to talk about Peppa Pig anyway, so I suppose in that sense she doesn’t hold grudges, so things move on quite quickly.” Diana.

Research question three

The third research question asks in what ways do mothers of children with ASD demonstrate resilience? The findings for question three show how the mothers of children with ASD recover from the place they found themselves in following the ‘Adversity Aftermath’. The concept of resting here was a fascinating discovery to come through from several of the accounts. Resilience is so often portrayed in terms of how well a person can take a hit and not fall down, but these accounts demonstrated that taking time to rest and recover was vital to their continued ability to carry on mothering their children. The theoretical code of ‘Recovery from Adversity’ reflects this finding.

The first part of resting involved time out spent by the mothers taking care of themselves or engaging in cognitive, spiritual, or social activities. The idea that resilience involved taking a rest came up in many of the interviews but was most clearly described by Lydia:

“I think that being a parent of a child with ASD requires you to perform at your peak. When they are having a meltdown, you have to be on top of your game, otherwise you could not deal with it. So, looking at peak performance, I know that exists in a cycle race, coupled with rest periods. Like I said earlier, the tour de France is not raced every day. There are rest days, and the rest facilitates the peak and the endurance. So, taking care of myself involves anything that means I am resting from the task of parenting J.”

Other parents described activities such as yoga, mindfulness, watching trashy TV, using work or study as downtime, having a bath, doing their make-up, spending time with their partner, family, and friends, praying and attending a place of worship, sustaining religious festivals, going to CBT, and cognitive reframing.

“Life’s not fair, none of this is fair. So, I stop looking for fair. That was very freeing, to realize that there is no fair, meant I could then give my attention to what is, rather than constantly looking for something I didn’t have, the life I thought I wanted. To understand that my life expectations were broken and not my heart meant that I could be OK with what was happening. It’s realizations like that, that mean I can carry on.” Helena.

The next theoretical code that relates to the third research question is ‘Adaptation to Past and Future Adversity.’ This reflected activities that the participants did, which meant that they were better equipped to face future adversities. This involved education to learn more about ASD:

“I have met various specialists as well and I have been to conferences and workshops and done a lot of learning to help my son but ultimately it is also helping me as well” Lydia.

The financial resourcing of things like private medical appointments and sending an older child to boarding school to reduce the impact of the younger child on their A levels:

“So, he was seen by a children’s psychiatrist […]and he was diagnosed there, it took only two hours.” Nina

Creating strategies to provide protective adaptation, such as knowing the triggers and being one step ahead of the child, environmental adaptations like changing their home around, not going to certain places and getting out of the house for a bit:

“It’s putting the strategies in place in order to manage the outward behaviour I suppose. So, it’s knowing what the triggers are before it happens. You almost have to be one step ahead with the children on the spectrum, and it is knowing how to pitch it.” Rhianna

Then, there were practical strategies such as using the various therapies available for ASD,

“I have educated myself in natural remedies like aromatherapy and medicinal use of essential oils, Eden energy medicine is useful to them too to help regulate them…I have run numerous different therapy programs to help with things like speech..” Helena.

Lastly, there were the emotional resources that the mothers brought in by focusing on their love for their children:

“…loving someone and knowing that you might not necessarily get anything back from them, they… may never be able to do anything for you. But yeah, just coming to that place of unconditional selfless love…yeah, I suppose.” Diana.

Experiences of resilience were evident from the narratives of all the seventeen participants in this study, as they all were actively engaging with the task of mothering their child despite challenging circumstances. This meant that resilience was conceived to be something that the participants did rather than something to either be or not be. The mothers also went over and above the ‘normal’ role of mothering to take on roles such as the therapist, the nurse, and the advocate for their child. This led to the conclusion that all the mothers demonstrated resilience. When asked about adversity, all of the mothers had very clear descriptions of the challenges that they faced. However, none of the mothers talked about outcomes for them, as they occupied a space in the present moment for themselves with only the occasional comment about their fears for themselves or their child’s future.

When answering the questions about what happens when they find themselves in the midst of adversity, the mothers all talked about a series of actions and activities that followed on from the adversity. The actions and activities involved managing the adversity, coping in the immediate aftermath of the adversity, followed by a recovery period involving resting and self-care, and then participating in activities that gave them a break from their caring responsibilities. The last part of this process involved reflecting on what had occurred and then thinking about how to avoid a similar event in the future. The mothers then resourced themselves with strategies like the planning of ways to avoid their child’s triggers or further education on ASD. The main purpose of this activity was to avoid a repeat of the adversity. This was a major finding of this research, as previous research has always observed a linear trajectory from adversity to outcome. This research suggests that, instead, resilience occurs in a cyclical manner, with the interim activities positioned between the adversity that has occurred and potential future adversities.

The resilience cycle that emerged had distinct stages that all the participants passed through in the same order. These stages are reflected in the theoretical codes. The last finding relates to the role of the environment, as it was observed that there is an interplay between the environment and the experiences of the participants in terms of either being a cause of adversity for the mothers or the source of support. However, the environment was not represented by a theoretical code as it was present in every one of the other codes; therefore, it demanded a different treatment.

Discussion

This study has aimed to find a new, kinder model of resilience that cannot be used to add further to the burden of someone dealing with adversity. As the consequences of the aftermath of a pandemic, a cost-of-living crisis and war in the world continue to impact lives around the globe; a more compassionate stance is needed now more than ever.

The first finding was that each participant demonstrated their response to adversity in the context of their environment, which either contributed to the adversity or supported them to recover. Some of the literature on resilience that suggests that it can be learned ignores the impact of the environment, as it puts the responsibility of being resilient onto the individual. The participants felt this pressure, which added to their sense of adversity. Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1981) suggests that each layer of the system that a person lives in exists in an interplay with the other layers in the system. This means that it should not be possible to suggest that a person be responsible in isolation for their resilience.

The second finding supported the wider literature in that none of the mothers found defining resilience easy, although most of them had a go with some using analogies to help explain it (Coutu, 2003; Meredith et al., 2011). The comments made by the mothers echoed the current conversation around resilience in that they thought it was either keeping going or bouncing back or post-traumatic growth (Ivtzan et al., 2016; Masten, 2001; Rutter, 1987). This finding supports this study’s assertion that a new model of resilience is needed, as the mothers did not like what they thought resilience was.

The mothers all faced adversity and described in some detail the adversities that they experienced. This is important to establish in a study as one of the parts of resilience agreed upon in the literature is that it follows adversity (Noltemeyer & Bush, 2013). So, having established that these mothers required resilience, their experiences that followed the adversities described elicited a new model of resilience.

The benefit of conducting a constructivist grounded theory study is that by applying gerunds to the transcripts, a picture of what is happening is formed. This led to a finding that resilience is actually something that people do rather than something that they are. This challenges the stance taken in the early existing literature that talks about either being resilient or not resilient (Neenan, 2018). The idea that resilience is something that people do is supported by the theoretical codes that came through from the interviews, as there appeared to be distinct stages to dealing with adversity. The first of these stages involved managing the immediate crisis with tasks that were either cognitive, practical, or social. These ideas are reminiscent of the protective factors (Wagnild & Young, 1993) and processes (Olsson et al., 2003) discussed in the existing literature, although not identical in detail, as emotional responses did not occur until the next stage of adversity aftermath.

The aftermath phase was different in character from the management phase. An example of this is the way that the participants interacted with those around them. In the management phase, the participants used other people to help practically, e.g. looking after a sibling while the mother dealt with the autistic child’s issue. In the aftermath stage, the participants talked or ranted to others about what had happened. This adds an additional level of detail to the existing literature in that Luther, Sawyer & Brown (2006) stated that social support was a protective factor but did not operationalize that concept.

It is also in the aftermath stage that the participant’s emotional response occurs. The literature that suggests that resilience is about continuing without any emotional downturn response is contradictory to arguments on healthy responses to adversity that are seen in mental health as if, for example, a person lost a close family member and did not have an emotional downturn, then that would not be considered healthy (Bryant, 2022).

The next stage was recovery from adversity, a novel concept not discussed in the existing literature on resilience. It is discussed in the literature relating to peak performance (Williams & Krane, 2021), where athletes are not expected to train or race every day. Additionally, if a person’s body suffers an adversity, for example, an illness, then according to the ‘sick role’ (Parsons, 1952), a person would be expected to rest to recover. However, this theory is not applied to any other type of adversity in the literature. Here, the participants also engaged in social activities; however, again, the nature of the interaction was different. In this stage, social interactions were more about ‘changing the subject.’ The participants talked about how ‘time out’ from the role of parenting helped them to recover. In addition to social activities, the participants also gave themselves a break from parenting with spiritual activities like attending a place of worship or praying or cognitive activities like engaging in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or hobbies such as writing a screenplay.

The last stage, described by the participants, involved talking about how they adapted. This was only possible once they had recovered sufficiently. This finding is consistent with Fredrickson’s (2004) Broaden and Build theory, which suggests that positive emotions lead to new thought repertoires, feelings and behaviours. Therefore, time out to regain positive emotions is intrinsic to the process of adaptation, which supports this study’s assertion that resilience occurs in stages. This was also an interesting finding because it changes the way that resilience is conceptualized, as it alters the way that those who take time to recover are perceived.

The idea of adaptation is not new (Reich et al., 2010); however, this study found something slightly more nuanced. As in previous research, the nature of the adaptation was related to the circumstances of the past adversity, but the reason for the adaptation was to prevent the same thing from occurring again. This is novel because it makes the operationalization of resilience circular rather than linear. This idea of resilience being a cycle is not seen in the literature. In support of this concept was a complete absence of any comment on outcomes. Resilience theory at present relies on the idea of there being an outcome. That is a day when the ‘post-test’ measure can be taken, and findings concluded to be a marker of resilience or lack thereof. In a laboratory, it would be possible to subject people to the same adversity (ethics aside) and then measure their recovery. However, in a real-world situation, the same adversity does not hit people equally as was seen during the pandemic, so a lower score would not necessarily denote a lack of resilience; it might just denote a more severe adversity.

To summarize the main findings, resilience is seen as something to do rather than something to be. It is also a process that occurs in sequential stages that are circular in nature rather than linear. It is important to note that resilience occurs in the context of the environment rather than people being solely responsible for their well-being. There was also no discussion regarding outcomes, so that concept does not appear in the conceptual model that this study now presents.

The diagram above shows the resilience cycle, a conceptual model built from the findings of this study. It presents a much kinder model of resilience as it involves resilience being something that people do. It has distinct stages that people move through, allowing everyone to identify their position on the cycle and see the process ahead.

Figure 1.The resilience cycle (authors own)

Theories that involve stages are not new to psychology. An example of a stage theory is Erikson’s (1959) stages of psychosocial development. In his theory, Erikson suggests that development involves moving through each stage and overcoming the challenge presented at that stage. This model operates in a similar way in that a person needs to satisfy each stage in order to move on to the next stage.

The implication of this model is that the definition of resilience needs to encompass all the stages of this model and include the areas in which it would have previously been decided that a person was not resilient. It should be noted that negative emotions are a necessary part of acknowledging the effect an adversity has had on a person’s life and are actually a healthy response to adversity (Bryant, 2022). This supports Shah’s (2022) studies on dysfunctional resilience, where a person determines to stay strong while feeling one step away from burnout. It also challenges discriminatory practices that require an individual to continue to struggle without support while giving them platitudes about being more resilient.

This model also provides hope for those who are feeling the effects of adversity in that resilience is a process that allows them to be where they need to be but demonstrates that they won’t be there forever.

For the participants, it was clear that there was a point when they had expressed their negative feelings and were ready to move on. In each case, they did not need to be told to move on; it was something they chose to do.

Implications for coaching practice

For coaches and others in helping professions, the implication of this is that by helping a coachee to identify where they are on the cycle and then embracing that place by working out how to do that part efficiently, they would be enabled to move forward towards adaptation. The place on the cycle where a person will feel the most comfortable is after the adaptation(s) have been decided and actioned. Helping people accept where they are and see their next steps would lessen suffering (Neff, 2011) and enable more expedient adaptation. Therefore, a coaching session using this model would involve using the resilience cycle diagram and asking the coachee to identify where they are on the cycle by showing them the diagram above in Figure 1 and then supporting the coachee to do that stage well. If a client is in the middle of the crisis, the coach can support them to see how to manage the immediate crisis. The emphasis here would be on being present with the current situation rather than looking to the future. This enables more clarity of thought around the current situation without adding fear for the future. So, if a client is in the adversity aftermath stage, holding space for the client to share their experience and work out their feelings around that crisis would encourage them to provide themselves with what they need to move through that stage. Clients in the recovery stage can be supported in identifying what helps them to recover, whether that be time out to have a quiet candlelit bath, go for a walk, engage in a hobby, or something else. The last part of the adaptation would involve identifying how the client might adapt to what has happened to prevent a recurrence of that crisis. Covey’s (2020) circles of control would be helpful here in finding the parts that are feasible for the client to change and what is outside their control in the environment. The emphasis on the environment enables the client to see that not everything is their responsibility to change. The benefit of using this model is it provides a road map for someone in a hard place to see that they don’t need to focus on being strong but rather on being kind to themselves and providing themselves with things that are nurturing and restorative.

Limitations

Limitations of this study are that it was a small-scale study that included 17 mothers of children with ASD. While there were only seventeen participants, the data collection did reach a saturation point where the last interviews did not elicit anything new. The participants were also all mothers in a similar situation of parenting a child with neurodivergence, so it is not known whether another study with another group of participants would lead to the same findings. Further research with differing groups of people would enable this conceptual model to be presented with more confidence and progress to a theory of resilience.

Conclusion

The resilience cycle model presented here offers a comprehensive multidimensional approach to supporting people who have faced adversity. It identifies key stages in moving forward following adversity that supports individuals rather than adding to their burden. It also demonstrates that the process of doing resilience is a cyclical rather than linear process, juxtaposed between the original adversity and a future potential adversity. The resilience cycle model challenges discriminatory practice that leaves people struggling while suggesting they be more resilient by emphasizing the importance of the environment as a source of further adversity or useful support. It also gives a clear path for individuals, coaches and other helping professionals to follow when working with a person who has faced adversity.

Author

Dr. Alison Bishop is an educator, researcher, and practitioner in resilience, specializing in empowering individuals and organizations to thrive in the face of adversity. As a faculty member at the Institute of Positive Psychology Coaching, she trains coaches, leaders and professionals on resilience and well-being to enhance their personal and professional lives.

Dr. Bishop has presented her resilience, hope, and optimism research at industry conferences. Formerly a lecturer in Positive Psychology Coaching and research methods within the Masters of Applied Positive Psychology and Coaching Psychology (MAPPCP) program at the University of East London, Dr. Bishop now dedicates her expertise to private coaching and leading transformational workshops.

Inspired by the courage of individuals who confront challenges and create meaningful change, Dr. Bishop exemplifies the transformative power of positive psychology in her own life, leaving a profound and lasting impact on those she serves.