See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322693327

Communication and resilience: concluding thoughts and key issues for future
research

Article  in  Journal of Applied Communication Research · January 2018

DOI: 10.1080/00909882.2018.1426691

CITATIONS READS

11 894

2 authors:

J. Brian Houston Patrice M. Buzzanell

University of Missouri University of South Florida
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,357 CITATIONS    162 PUBLICATIONS   2,267 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Workplace Dignity View project

Feminist Pedagogy Collaboration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Brian Houston on 05 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Applied Communication Research

ISSN: 0090-9882 (Print) 1479-5752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjac20

Communication and resilience: concluding

thoughts and key issues for future research

J. Brian Houston & Patrice M. Buzzanell

To cite this article: J. Brian Houston & Patrice M. Buzzanell (2018) Communication and resilience:
concluding thoughts and key issues for future research, Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 46:1, 26-27, DOI: 10.1080/00909882.2018.1426691

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1426691

Published online: 24 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 119

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjac20
JOURNAL OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 2018
VOL. 46, NO. 1, 26–27
https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2017.1426691

Communication and resilience: concluding thoughts and key

issues for future research
J. Brian Houstona and Patrice M. Buzzanellb
a
Department of Communication, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA; bDepartment of Communication,
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

In reflecting upon our introductory overview and individual essays, we identify three key
issues related to an applied or engaged communication scholarship agenda in the area of
resilience that warrant attention from scholars moving forward. First, in considering the
most urgent needs for future communication and resilience research, we suggest that scho-
lars in and beyond the communication traditions advanced by Craig (1999) activate pro-
ductive lines of research. Investigations into the language of resilience locally, nationally,
and globally would inform discussions about rebuilding, cultivation, difference and exclu-
sion, and particularities of both everyday and extraordinary disruptions and adaptation.
Work across systems and contexts could begin to identify core and cross-cutting commu-
nicative components of the resilience levels explored in the Forum. While there are differ-
ences between interpersonal relationships, families, and communities, there may also be
similar communicative processes that foster resilience across these diverse levels. As an
example, social connections and support appear to foster coping and adaptation among
all of these levels. Therefore, social connections and support may be a cross-cutting resi-
lience component. Other cross-cutting communicative components could be identified so
that the study of communication and resilience could simultaneously develop general
insights across levels as well as deeper knowledge within levels. Scale development
should follow such conceptual work, so that, ideally, communication and resilience
scales that function across a variety of levels could be developed and validated.
A second issue concerns fundamental knowledge of how resilience is constructed by
citizens, families, media systems, organizations, and governments in everyday talk and
mediated communication. We believe that identifying the ways that communication
can foster adaption related to stressors and crises is important, but we are also aware of
a more critical reading of resilience. In this critical reading, people and systems that do
not recover following a crisis are blamed for their lack of adaptation. At the same time,
resources necessary for individual and system coping may not be prioritized or provided
because resilience is understood to be an innate trait of people and systems, rather than a
capacity that is ultimately the product of support, opportunity, and assets. Additionally,
citizen actions such as protest and dissent may be viewed as destructive (and thus
judged to be not resilient) if these actions deviate from specific conceptualizations of
‘good citizenship’ (Chadburn, 2015). Moreover, a focus on resilience may ignore historical
issues (e.g. community trauma) or other systematic inequities (Acosta, Chandra, &

CONTACT J. Brian Houston houstonjb@missouri.edu

© 2018 National Communication Association
 JOURNAL OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 27

Madrigano, 2017). Communication research could interrogate the ways in which individ-
uals, organizations, media systems, and governments construct and depict resilience, to
better understand common perspectives regarding resilience as used by people and
systems. This work could identify hidden conceptual obstacles that may ultimately under-
mine resilience. Studying narratives of resilience within and among levels could also foster
both a general understanding of resilience as well as components that can foster resilience.
Theoretical and academic models of resilience are essential, but so is an understanding of
how people and systems talk about resilience. These latter insights might be particularly
useful in identifying sustainable and effective opportunities for interventions that foster
resilience.
Finally, resilience activities, programs, and interventions that have impact across levels
should be developed and tested. A grand resilience challenge might consider how to
develop resilience cultivation programs that center on social relationships (Afifi), move
within individual through family and organizational systems (Theiss and Buzzanell),
acknowledge collective interactivity and media ecologies (Houston), and remain vigilant
about rhetorical moves at national and other levels (Bean). We suggest that communi-
cation scholars are well suited to be part of disciplinary and transdisciplinary efforts to
understand and foster multilevel resilience. However, such efforts will require a focus
that is attuned to resilience as it functions both within and across the levels discussed
in this Forum. We hope that the essays included here empower communication research-
ers to join in this work and help advance our understanding and ability to intervene in this
important domain.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Acosta, J., Chandra, A., & Madrigano, J. (2017, February). An agenda to advance integrative resili-
ence research and practice: Key themes from a resilience roundtable. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.
Chadburn, M. (2015, February 9). How fostering resilience keeps low-income communities down.
Al Jazeera America. Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/how-
fostering-resilience-keeps-low-income-communities-down.html
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.

View publication stats