“We Are Still Here”: The Everyday Work Of Coping With Intergenerational Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coping, defined as “thoughts and behaviours used to manage the internal and external demands of situations that are appraised as stressful”, has been a research focus since Lazarus’s 1966 book, Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. However, while a fair amount of coping literature both in psychology and management focuses on discrete adverse events (for example, bereavement, job loss, COVID, etc.), there is little research on how everyday actors cope with chronic conditions of adversity like intergenerational trauma. Our qualitative study studies the context of Indigenous entrepreneurs in the Canadian Prairies and endeavors to answer the question – How do everyday actors (specifically, everyday entrepreneurs) cope with intergenerational trauma? We find that Indigenous entrepreneurs in the Canadian Prairies experience everyday (chronic) emotional hurt by virtue of intergenerational trauma. This necessitates deployment of everyday coping strategies which would help mitigate this hurt. Notwithstanding instances of maladaptive coping (e.g., addictions and alcoholism), we find that Indigenous entrepreneurs predominantly leverage two broad categories of adaptive intra-personal coping mechanisms – subversive humor and restorative storytelling – that “undo” some of the negative effects of chronic emotional hurt. In addition to intra-personal coping strategies, we also find a set of inter-personal communal coping strategies which implicate family and community members (for example, cultural ceremonies and storytelling). As we analyzed these strategies, we came to realize that these coping strategies serve as micro-processes which underpin both emotion-work and institutional-work, i.e. not only help with emotional work but also help with routine disruption and (re)-creation of alternative institutions. Consequently our findings have implications for both coping literature as well as social symbolic work literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".