Cultural Resilience in North American Indian First Nations: The Story of Little Turtle
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Protective factors, needed for personal resilience, are known to vary from culture to culture. As such, social workers are faced with having to increase their knowledge and competence when working cross-culturally. In a bid to advance this understanding, this paper takes a culturally sensitive look at resilience in North American Indian First Nations. Founded on an interview with a colleague, this inquiry considers the interplay of self-concept, family, and culture in the development of protective factors in resilience. Implications for practice employing an understanding of cultural resilience are discussed. A combination of genetics and experience affects how we cope with matters ranging from mischance to catastrophe (Flach, 1997; Fraser, 1997; Kirby & Fraser, 1997; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). However, it is difficult to deconstruct this biopsychosocial entanglement into a triaged series of component steps. As such, the wrangling over the protective factor pecking-order remains somewhat moot (Butler, 1997). What is certain is that the focus of coping and change, from a social work perspective, lies in our ability to comprehend the psychosocial factors affecting resilience (Angell, Dennis & Dumain, 1997). We do know that individuals develop protective factors as a means of remedying or abating the effects of life-events that place them at risk (Rutter, 1987). Protective and risk factors are not merely opposite ends of a continuum, but rather are sequential links in the developmental chain of resiliency (Smith, Lizotte, Thronberry & Krohn, 1995). However, as Kirby and Fraser (1997) and Coie et al. (1993) note, what is considered to be a protective factor in one culture could invariably be determined a risk factor in another. This in and of itself is not problematic until such time as a member of a particular culture attempts or is forced to bridge his or her culture with that of another. What is certain is that the family, the main conduit of culture, is a keystone protective factor determinate of resilience (Smith, Lizotte, Thornberry & Krohn, 1995). This supporting pillar of resilience is founded on the individual's formative years attachment to his or her parent or parents who in turn provide protection through value-based guidance and by modeling culturally ascribed behaviors related to adaptive functioning. It is important to keep in mind that a single protective factor safeguard, such as the family, cannot necessarily provide an individual with all the insulation he or she will need to avoid the ravages of risk, but it is pivotal (Rutter, 1987). A supportive family, therefore, is seen as enhancing self-esteem, improving self-reliance and personal efficacy, and supporting the individual in his or her bid for independence and control over his or her environment (Benard, 1991). The family acts as a canal that transports culture across time and space. As such, family and culture become inseparably tied together. As Linquanti (1992) and Benard (1994) suggest, strengthening protective factors, like family and culture, are as consequential in the development of wellbeing as is the abatement of risk factors. With this in mind, it is understandable that a strong connection by the individual to his or her family and culture are essential to the development of personal resilience. In turn, this connection serves as a catalyzing base for the individual to gain support and acceptance from likeminded others (Werner, 1984, Werner & Smith, 1992). In this paper, personal resilience is considered from the perspective of culture as conveyed to the individual by way of the family. In particular, the investigation looks at how a North American Indian First Nation social worker utilizes the protective factor of culture, and its agent the family, to make ethical decisions and deal in general with the dominant society.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».