TY - JOUR
T1 - Holistic infrastructure resilience research requires multiple perspectives, not just multiple disciplines
AU - Thomas, John E.
AU - Eisenberg, Daniel A.
AU - Seager, Thomas P.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant number 1441352. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 by the authors.
PY - 2018/8/10
Y1 - 2018/8/10
N2 - Resilience research includes multiple definitions, concepts, perspectives, and applications across a broad range of academic disciplines. While experts, policy-makers, and practitioners assert that resilience requires holism, what is considered holistic is rarely discussed. The traditional scientific approach to holism is to engage multiple disciplines. However, this review studies an alternative approach to holism that engages multiple perspectives, as suggested by integral theory. An integral approach requires consideration of at least four irreducible domains: (1) subjective experience, (2) intersubjective culture, (3) objective behavior, and (4) interobjective systems. This way of approaching holism both engages multiple disciplines and reveals important gaps in the popular understanding of resilient infrastructure. For example, organizing the 20 most highly cited resilience research articles from all disciplines according to the Integral Map reveals that most articles in the sample set are distributed among three of the four perspectives corresponding to experience, behavior, and systems. None of the most popular articles studies resilience through the lens of culture. Thus, the importance of factors such as organizational values and group intentionality may be underappreciated in the scholarly literature.
AB - Resilience research includes multiple definitions, concepts, perspectives, and applications across a broad range of academic disciplines. While experts, policy-makers, and practitioners assert that resilience requires holism, what is considered holistic is rarely discussed. The traditional scientific approach to holism is to engage multiple disciplines. However, this review studies an alternative approach to holism that engages multiple perspectives, as suggested by integral theory. An integral approach requires consideration of at least four irreducible domains: (1) subjective experience, (2) intersubjective culture, (3) objective behavior, and (4) interobjective systems. This way of approaching holism both engages multiple disciplines and reveals important gaps in the popular understanding of resilient infrastructure. For example, organizing the 20 most highly cited resilience research articles from all disciplines according to the Integral Map reveals that most articles in the sample set are distributed among three of the four perspectives corresponding to experience, behavior, and systems. None of the most popular articles studies resilience through the lens of culture. Thus, the importance of factors such as organizational values and group intentionality may be underappreciated in the scholarly literature.
KW - Holism
KW - Holistic
KW - Infrastructure
KW - Integral
KW - Resilience
KW - Resilient infrastructure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067087414&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067087414&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/infrastructures3030030
DO - 10.3390/infrastructures3030030
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85067087414
SN - 2412-3811
VL - 3
JO - Infrastructures
JF - Infrastructures
IS - 3
M1 - 30
ER -