Purpose. This paper discusses the overall project design and rationale for the International Resilience Project (IRP), a 14-site, 11 country study that has investigated culturally specific factors and processes related to resilience among at-risk youth globally. This paper, which was recently published as the introduction to an edited volume of papers on the topic, will highlight the arbitrariness in previous resilience research and the challenges researchers face working cross-culturally. More than a discussion of theory, however, this presentation will explore in detail the messy art of research that seeks to conduct culturally embedded research across multiple sites. It will also explore multiple definitions of resilience found globally as well as the perils and pitfalls of international and cross-cultural collaborations, with specific detail provided regarding how to reach consensus on methods and negotiate multiple understandings of the psychosocial determinants of health.

Method. A team of 35 researchers have met in different combinations both electronically and face-to-face. These discussions have led to an innovative design for the IRP, while also raising many challenges that have not been well-explored in either the cross-cultural research or resilience literature. Discussions preceding and during a series of meetings and an international conference on the theme of resilience research have helped to resolve many of the challenges facing IRP team members both as a team and in their individual research sites.

Results. Specific areas of concern dealt with by the IRP included a number of areas. 1) Sampling: Cross-culturally it proved culturally biased to select youth all of the same age for inclusion. Instead, researchers agreed to include youth who were at the transition point to adult status within each culture and context, making an argument for the greater variability required in cross-cultural studies; 2) Design: Methodological innovation required face-to-face meetings and electronic communication, site visits and easy exchange of information. 32 common “domains” of study were agreed upon by team members, though not all 32 are as relevant to minority (western) world contexts as majority world settings; 3) Ethical review of research: As many sites did not have formal ethics review processes, innovation required the team to develop processes and procedures that ensured accountability through the use of advisory committees and the oversight of the host institution's REB; 4) Data analysis and findings dissemination: Concurrent joint analysis of quantitative and qualitative data provided formidable challenges to members of the IRP. Ways in which data were shared and the need for cross-site discussion of findings will be highlighted.

Implications. This presentation explores how access to social determinants of health influence the pathways children travel to resilience.