Resilience in Glasgow: reflections and connections

27 April 2018

In the final blog in our series on resilience and population health, Val McNeice reflects on our bloggers' contributions and learning from our Healthier Future Forum.

On Sunday morning I watched the London Marathon coverage on TV. I can only imagine the discomfort felt by the runners. Blue skies and sunshine led to the highest temperatures ever recorded during a London Marathon and 26.2 miles is a long way. We might say that to cross the finish line, the runners were resilient.

But what do we really mean by this? When are we, as people and communities, resilient? And if we are not able to be, what then?

Last week, the GCPH hosted their 21st Healthier Future Forum supported by a series of blogs, of which this is the final instalment. We heard from Sarah Toy, Chief Resilience Officer for Bristol; Duncan Booker, Chief Resilience Officer in Glasgow and, from the GCPH, Pete Seaman spoke about continuing and emerging challenges that may undermine resilience in the city. From these speakers, and the lively workshop conversations among the participants, connectedness emerged, for me, as the strongest theme. Simply put, to be a resilient population, people need to be and to feel connected to others; as Michael Marmot has told us, “people with stronger networks are healthier and happier” (Fair Society, Healthy Lives, 2010). This is not new or startling, you might say. Here at the GCPH we research and reflect not only to learn, but also to affect change, so what can we do – or do more of – to create the conditions for resilient people and populations to flourish?

Our early research on resilience for public health (2014) has been part of a growing general sense that supporting the resilience concept into practice is a worthy goal. You may have noticed references to resilience popping up in plans, policies and conversations across Glasgow.

In this work, we describe resilience as being simultaneously ‘within us, between us and beyond us’ – and the Forum participants appeared to support this framing of the concept. Our social, physical and economic circumstances strongly influence our inner resources (what is within us), how connected, or isolated, we find ourselves (what is between us) and our links to people and organisations that make decisions that affect our lives (that which is beyond us).

The London Marathon course will have felt longer for some than for others; just as in life, our individual experiences are not equal. Andressa Gadda’s blog explores how early life experiences play a crucial role in our development and health and wellbeing throughout the course of our lives. We must be mindful of these differences in asking a person, or a population, to be resilient. Tackling such inequalities was touched on by Jamie Cooke through the lens of social protection in his blog.

Returning to my marathon metaphor, perhaps in considering the resilience concept we should be feeling uncomfortable, just like Sunday’s runners. We are learning from research about the picture of inequality and population health in Glasgow and Scotland so that we might collectively take positive action. However, exploring resilience as a way of supporting population health has shown us that human relational responses are important to allow the strengths and aspirations of people and populations to be realised. Taking a human perspective in assessing the wide variety of information available to us on poverty and inequality takes us beyond the data to a picture that is moving and emotional.

Promoting resilience as a concept that can support population health is not about recommending a set of actions. (If only it were so simple.) To endure is important, but resilience is also about adapting; supporting moving on and moving up – for which connectedness, often described as ‘social capital’, is imperative.

However, re-framing our existing perspectives may be illuminating. For example, give some thought to the distinction between big systems (our NHS, or local authority) as inanimate organisations, to understanding that people are the essence of all such systems. Professional roles too, are occupied by human beings. The ‘people’ and ‘communities’ we talk and write about are also us. Cathy Sharp, in her blog, asks us to bring a piece of ourselves to the workplace. Related to this, Carnegie UK’s newly established Kindness Innovation Network recognises a role for all of us in protecting each other from loneliness and social isolation to promote resilient and empowered communities. 

As well as individuals, organisations too may become more resilient in creating links with those around them and with the people they serve – but disinvestment and the need (perceived or actual) to compete for funding can undermine efforts to reach out and share. A recently published piece of action research, Weathering Change, demonstrates that supporting local organisations to connect is possible and a shared vision, with people at the centre, is certainly helpful in achieving this aim. Can funders also incentivise community-based organisations that collaborate?  

Lastly, I want to mention measurement. Judging success in terms of building resilience is undoubtedly problematic, both at the individual level and for communities and systems. We need to use carefully selected indicators of change, being wary of the inevitable draw to those that are simplest to measure. Because it is not easily evidenced does not mean that change has not occurred, or that the outcome is any less important. Qualitative methods, alongside quantitative, are often wholly appropriate and just as robust when used well, and in the right circumstances.

The social context is challenging, and we have no reason to believe the pressure will be alleviated. If we take the time and energy to create the conditions that help people, communities and places to flourish, rather than focusing our efforts on creating resilient systems in themselves, we may feel more connected too. After all, building connections and relationships that matter is a marathon, not a sprint.


About the author

Val McNeice Senior Public Health Research Specialist


Val is a Senior Public Health Research Specialist, experienced in working across the Centre’s programmes to provide expertise on research and evaluation, and in translating learning into action.

Val is currently on placement with Glasgow City Council managing a programme of work on health and inclusive growth, where she is exploring opportunities for the local authority to put health and wellbeing at the heart of economic decision making in the city.

Val’s work has focused across a number of areas, including early years education, childcare, and family support. Val was a member of the evaluation team for CHANGE (Childcare and Nurture in Glasgow East) which aims to establish a new, locally appropriate model of childcare provision. Val also worked on an evaluation of Stepping Stones for Families’ Family Wellbeing Service; and supported TASK Childcare Services in Gorbals, Glasgow with outcomes planning and evaluation of their work.

She is part of a multi-agency team working with families in urban and rural areas to explore the ‘cost of the pregnancy pathway’, with a view to reducing the financial burden for low-income families. 

Previously, Val has worked on evaluating the provision of parenting support across Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and on citizenship in the early years.

More broadly, Val has studied asset-based approaches, publishing, most recently, on asset-based approaches in health and social care service settings. And, in terms of resilience, Val was part of the multi-agency ‘Resilient Glasgow’ team and jointly authored a review of the literature on resilience for public health. To support Glasgow city’s Resilience Strategy, Val worked with colleagues at Glasgow City Council to produce a short animation which tells the story of the city’s resilience journey.  

Val has a particular interest in the many forms that data and evidence can take, and in participatory research and evaluation methods. She believes in using a broad range of knowledge to inform public health decision-making, and in ensuring participation in research and evaluation is a positive experience. With the Scottish Community Development Centre, Val was part of the Animating Assets action research team and also worked on ‘Weathering Change’ – an action research programme with a focus on climate change resilience. 

Read all articles by Val McNeice