Time for ‘resilience’: community mediators working with marginalised young people offer a novel approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Since the 2008 financial crisis, state retrenchment has added to the harshness of life for marginalised groups globally. This UK study suggests community activism may promote human capacity and resilience in innovative ways. The purpose of this paper is to address the relationship between non-normative understandings of time and resilience.\n\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach: This research paper is based on qualitative study of the work of a third sector organisation based in an urban area in the UK which provides training in mediation skills for community mediators (CMs). These CMs (often former “gang members”) work with young people in order to prevent conflict within and between groups of white British, South Asian and Roma heritage.\n\n\n\nFindings: CMs are reflexively developing temporalities which replace hegemonic linear time with a situationally “open time” praxis. The time “anomalies” which characterise the CMs’ engagement appear related to aesthetic rationality, a form of rationality which opens up new ways of thinking about resilience. Whether CMs’ understandings and enactments of resilience can point to broader changes of approach in the delivery of social care is considered.\n\n\n\nPractical implications: This paper contributes to critical understandings of resilience that challenge traditional service delivery by pointing to an alternative approach that focusses on processes and relationships over pre-defined outcomes.\n\n\n\nSocial implications: Hegemonic understandings of time (as a linear process) can delegitimise potentially valuable understandings of resilience developed by members of marginalised communities.\n\n\n\nOriginality/value: This paper is original in developing a critical analysis of the relationship between resilience and time.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".