“Flying over the crisis”: A study on interdisciplinary metaphors of resilience

IF 1 3区心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Culture & Psychology Pub Date : 2022-11-15 DOI:10.1177/1354067X221111438

Lisa Milena Kriegsmann-Rabe, N. Hiebel, Katja Maus, F. Geiser

{"title":"“Flying over the crisis”: A study on interdisciplinary metaphors of resilience","authors":"Lisa Milena Kriegsmann-Rabe, N. Hiebel, Katja Maus, F. Geiser","doi":"10.1177/1354067X221111438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/Aim: Metaphors on theoretical concepts may be congruent or divergent from their explicit definitions. We carried out a secondary qualitative analysis on metaphors of members of an interdisciplinary research group on resilience and investigated: (A) Which metaphors do experts in different disciplines use to describe people showing resilience? (B) Do these (implicit) metaphors support the (explicit) theses of the research group on resilience? (C) Do we find differences between experts from different disciplines in the use of metaphors on resilience? Method: Nine guideline-based interviews with experts from medicine, psychology, philosophy, and theology were studied using a systematic metaphor analysis, basing on inductive and deductive categorizations. Results: Eight metaphor sources were identified, for example, battle, path. Experts used similar metaphors to describe resilience that often overarched the concepts of resilience as a trait, process, and outcome. Moments of vulnerability within the resilience trajectory were found. Conclusions: The analysis revealed high concordance of metaphors across different disciplines, reflecting both the ideas of the group as well as the mainstream view of resilience. This supports that implicit concepts may be more difficult to reframe than explicit theories. Few differences between disciplines may point to the impact of an overarching Western concept of individual resilience.","PeriodicalId":47241,"journal":{"name":"Culture & Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"157 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X221111438","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Aim: Metaphors on theoretical concepts may be congruent or divergent from their explicit definitions. We carried out a secondary qualitative analysis on metaphors of members of an interdisciplinary research group on resilience and investigated: (A) Which metaphors do experts in different disciplines use to describe people showing resilience? (B) Do these (implicit) metaphors support the (explicit) theses of the research group on resilience? (C) Do we find differences between experts from different disciplines in the use of metaphors on resilience? Method: Nine guideline-based interviews with experts from medicine, psychology, philosophy, and theology were studied using a systematic metaphor analysis, basing on inductive and deductive categorizations. Results: Eight metaphor sources were identified, for example, battle, path. Experts used similar metaphors to describe resilience that often overarched the concepts of resilience as a trait, process, and outcome. Moments of vulnerability within the resilience trajectory were found. Conclusions: The analysis revealed high concordance of metaphors across different disciplines, reflecting both the ideas of the group as well as the mainstream view of resilience. This supports that implicit concepts may be more difficult to reframe than explicit theories. Few differences between disciplines may point to the impact of an overarching Western concept of individual resilience.

查看原文本刊更多论文

“飞越危机”：韧性跨学科隐喻研究

背景/目的:理论概念上的隐喻可能与它们的明确定义一致，也可能不同。我们对一个跨学科弹性研究小组成员的隐喻进行了二次定性分析，并调查了:(a)不同学科的专家使用哪些隐喻来描述表现出弹性的人?(B)这些(隐含的)隐喻是否支持研究小组关于弹性的(明确的)论点?(C)我们是否发现来自不同学科的专家在使用弹性隐喻方面存在差异?方法:在归纳和演绎分类的基础上，采用系统的隐喻分析方法，对医学、心理学、哲学和神学专家进行了9次基于指南的访谈。结果:确定了战斗、路径等8种隐喻来源。专家们用类似的比喻来描述弹性，这种比喻往往超越了弹性作为一种特征、过程和结果的概念。在恢复轨迹中发现了脆弱的时刻。结论:不同学科间的隐喻具有高度的一致性，既反映了群体的观点，也反映了心理弹性的主流观点。这支持了内隐概念可能比外显理论更难重构。学科之间几乎没有什么差异，可能会指出西方的总体个人弹性概念的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Culture & Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-

CiteScore

2.40

自引率

18.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： Culture & Psychology addresses the centrality of culture necessary for a basic understanding of the psychology of human beings: their identity, social conduct, intra- and intersubjective experiences, emotions and semiotic creativity. By drawing on diverse theoretical backgrounds, the editorial aim is to provide an international and interdisciplinary forum for scholarly investigations and discussions that will advance our basic knowledge of the self in its historical and cultural contexts. The orientation of the journal is towards formulating new conceptualizations of culture in psychology, together with theoretically relevant empirical investigations.