Why and How to Consider the Resilience of Individuals?

  • Keith Noble
  • Tania Dennis
  • Sarah Larkins


Any property that conveys resilience to a specific farm at a specific point in time might well be irrelevant at a later point in time when both the farm and the context will have changed. In this chapter, the principal author’s ontological and epistemological positions within the interpretative paradigm are described, and there is reflection on how these have influenced and underpinned the methodological approach. The emergence and evolution of this approach within the social sciences is also described, as it is an important element of both how the study was approached and why it is important. The methods used for data collection and analysis are described and the emergent research themes introduced.


  1. Ashworth, P. (2010). Editorial. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 5, 5535. Scholar
  2. Bertero, C. (2012). Grounded theory methodology: Has it become a movement? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 7, 18571. Scholar
  3. Bowden, J. (2000). The nature of phenomenographic research [online]. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Dahlberg, K. (2013). The scientific dichotomy and the question of evidence. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 8, 21846. Scholar
  7. Darnhofer, I. (2010). Strategies of family farms to strengthen their resilience. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(4), 212–222. Scholar
  8. Darnhofer, I. (2014). Resilience and why it matters for farm management. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41(3), 461–484. Scholar
  9. Darnhofer, I., Fairweather, J., & Moller, H. (2010). Assessing a farm’s sustainability: Insights from resilience thinking. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8(3), 186–198. Scholar
  10. Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Jamila Haider, L., Quinlan, A. E., Peterson, G. D., Wilkinson, C., Fünfgeld, H., McEvoy, D., Porter, L., & Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? “Reframing” resilience: Challenges for planning theory and practice interacting traps: Resilience assessment of a pasture management system in northern Afghanistan urban resilience: What does it mean in planning practice? Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? The politics of resilience for planning: A cautionary note. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), 299–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delanty, G. (2005). Social science (2nd ed.). Glasgow: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flint, C. G., & Luloff, A. E. (2005). Natural resource-based communities, risk, and disaster: An intersection of theories. Society & Natural Resources, 18(5), 399–412. Scholar
  14. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  15. Grix, J. (2002). Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research. Politics, 22(3), 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hallberg, L. (2006). The “core category” of grounded theory: Making constant comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 1(3), 141–148. Scholar
  18. Hallberg, L. (2013). Quality criteria and generalization of results from qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 8, 20647. Scholar
  19. Herbert, F. (1981). God emperor of dune. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  20. Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 393–402). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Latour, B. (2004). How to talk about the body?: The normative dimension of science studies. Body & Society, 10(2/3), 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Layder, D. (2013). Doing excellent small-scale research. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lowenthal, D. (2000). A historical perspective on risk. In M. J. Cohen (Ed.), Risk in the modern age: Social theory, science and environmental decision-making (pp. 251–257). New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. Scholar
  26. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography – a research approach investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–49.Google Scholar
  27. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, W., & Irvine, A. (2008). I’m okay, you’re okay?: Reflections on the well-being and ethical requirements of researchers and research participants in conducting qualitative fieldwork interviews. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  31. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2008). Interviewing the interpretive researcher: A method for addressing the crises of representation, legitimation, and praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polkinghorne, D. E. (2006). An agenda for the second generation of qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 1, 68–77. Scholar
  33. Rist, R. C. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545–557). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Seaman, J. (2008). Adopting a grounded theory approach to cultural-historical research: Conflicting methodologies or complementary methods? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  36. Smart, B. (1976). Sociology, phenomenology, and Marxian analysis: A critical discussion of the theory and practice of a science of society. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  37. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tanggaard, L. (2008). Objections in research interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(3), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, C. (1985). Human agency and language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Veinot, T. C., & Williams, K. (2012). Following the “community” thread from sociology to information behavior and informatics: Uncovering theoretical continuities and research opportunities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(5), 847–864. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Noble
    • 1
  • Tania Dennis
    • 2
  • Sarah Larkins
    • 3
  1. 1.James Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Insideout ArchitectsTownsvilleAustralia
  3. 3.College of Medicine and DentistryJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations