Page 60 - JSOM Spring 2018

was reviewed with focus on observations toward broader FIGURE 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
generalizations, assuming that concepts are contextual and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram of literature search, examination,
developed over time. Methodology for executing Rodgers’ and inclusion. 35
30
analyses of concepts are prescriptive: (1) define the concept of
interest and its surrogate terms; (2) determine the appropri-
ate population of interest from which data are gathered; (3)
collect data related to the purpose; (4) determine and explain
conceptual attributes; (5) determine the concept’s contextual
basis and fundamentals such as sociocultural and associated
antecedents; (5) analyze the concept via its identified attributes;
and (6) present hypotheses and rationale for the concept analy-
sis. Consequences and implications of the concept analysis
31
are also presented, along with interpreted conclusions.

Considering the dearth of analyses of resilience within SOF,
our search of the literature and our subsequent appraisal were
broadened to general military populations. Due to this lack
of specific definitions in the broader military population,
methods of conceptual analyses that direct investigators to-
ward creating an operational definition or example cases 30,32
are suboptimal. For SOF and SOF families, context is critical,
because concepts and definitions within military cultures and
subcultures have completely different meanings than in civil- Discussion
ian environments, and SOF is a completely different context
altogether. Furthermore, resilience may morph conceptually Resilience in the Military: Definitions
33
depending on emergence of geopolitical conflicts, combat de- To advance use of concepts and effectively analyze data, it is
8
ployments, troop levels, and resources available to the SOF imperative to clarify concepts with obscure meanings. It is
community. Rodgers’ methodology is the most appropriate, important to note that resilience research evolved markedly
because the approach is rigorous and applicable to concepts since September 11, 2001, amidst heightened emergence of
that change with environment, culture, and time. 34 global terrorism. Such existential threats to the normalcy of
military populations and their families recontextualized resil-
An exhaustive review of the literature was conducted with the ience for those unpredictable circumstances, especially consid-
search terms resilience, hardiness, concept, concept analysis, ering that military personnel and their families transitioned
and military. To enable broad return of interdisciplinary ar- from an overall peacetime military to a population under con-
ticles, acceptance criteria included all age ranges, multiple non- stant threat of deployments, injuries, death, and separation.
military populations studied, and studies in which resilience In particular, SOF face different levels of threat, have different
was measured with psychometric instruments. Databases in- deployment notifications and preparation (e.g., less notice or
cluded in the search were CINAHL, PubMed, PsycInfo, Google no notice at all), operate in clandestine and abstruse environ-
Scholar, and military/government collections. The search re- ments, and their families likely experience more uncertainty
turned eight articles. The terms concept and concept analysis than that of conventional Soldiers’ families. Referring to fami-
were removed and databases re-searched, which resulted in 339 lies at risk, resilience has been conceptually defined from a
articles returned. Excluded studies were those not written in basis of building capability from states of risk, a salient point
36
or translated to English and literature not from peer-reviewed for the SOF community. Conversely, resilience is defined as
sources. No date ranges were excluded; after title review for self-awareness of one’s personal mental state and the interac-
alignment with the subject matter, 58 articles ultimately were tion with others’ mental states. Such diametric definitions,
37
included for analysis (Figure 1). Abstracts were then critically in addition to evolutionary emphasis on resilience as either
examined for alignment with the subject and for applicability; a personality trait or a performance capability, highlight the
articles included were those deemed most rigorous in methods importance of performing a current conceptual analysis of re-
and germane to military resilience research. Despite significant silience that is contextually relevant to the SOF community.
focus on military resilience research found when excluding
the search terms concept and/or concept analysis, when those Resilience research in the military historically focused on
terms were applied in the literature search, only one concept defining resilience as protection against negative health out-
analysis of military resilience returned, though it was not con- comes or as a factor that promotes positive leadership quali-
textually specific to SOF families or spouses. 19 ties. 26,38-44 No literature we found specifically viewed the
military contextually as a sociocultural environment of con-
This article incorporates elements of one previous concept tributory subcultures with corresponding communities and
analysis of military resilience while re-exploring the concept resource availability, nor were definitions of community mili-
19
of resilience within SOF populations via Rodgers’ evolutionary tary resilience found in articles retrieved. As a subculture of
concept analysis framework versus other methodologies. 31,32 the military, the SOF community exhibits baseline archetypes
30
As noted, military doctrinal literature was included for analy- of the conventional military, yet SOF is distinctly different in
27
sis because its inclusion enables closing gaps in knowledge be- philosophy, cohesion, dynamics, and mission. Sociocultural
tween views of researchers and the perspectives of those whose distinctions are extended here to include SOF spouses and
concept is analyzed —in this case, between researchers and the families as integral to the community, because they also expe-
8
SOF community. rience risk and secondary trauma.

56 | JSOM Volume 18, Edition 1/Spring 2018