While resilience has grown to become a well-established goal of policy and practice, assessing resilience remains an outstanding problem. To date, measurement has largely relied on the identification of proxy indicators, inevitably shaping what is measured in ways that reflect underlying assumptions, generalisations and approximations, and raising the question of whose values are being embedded into resilience. These concerns reflect recent interest in the role of recognition justice in resilience, and in particular how marginalisation from meaning-making processes creates the conditions for the inequitable distribution of outcomes in practice. Here, we propose a two stage, subjective approach to resilience assessment, starting with rapid household interviews that invite participants to assess the likely impact of multiple shock and stressor storylines. In a second step, participatory qualitative methods are employed to support inductive investigation of resilience focused on the factors that differentiate those reporting relatively high and low resilience. We illustrate this using fieldwork data from 569 households in Bangladesh. This subjective approach enables households to engage in the production of knowledge about their resilience, revealing two core features of situated heterogeneity: the forms of difference, and the underlying causes. Underlying causes arise from interactions and feedbacks between social, political, economic and institutional conditions that are highly context specific, while significant forms of difference include intra-community and scalar heterogeneity; vulnerability to specific or generalised shocks; and the role of undesirable practices in securing resilience. The results underline the need for resilience to be assessed in relation to local understandings of precarity, and through the expression of senses of justice that inform local conceptions of wellbeing. This means moving beyond positivist approaches and placing epistemic diversity at the centre of resilience assessment, enabling the production of a situated understanding of how and why resilience is differentiated, and offering an analytical starting point from which policy and practice can drive towards equitable resilience.

尽管复原力已成为政策和实践的既定目标，但是评估复原力仍然是一个突出的问题。迄今为止，衡量主要依靠对代理指标的识别，不可避免地以反映基本假设，概括性和近似性的方式来塑造衡量对象，并提出了将其价值嵌入弹性的问题。这些关注反映了最近人们对承认正义在抵御力中的作用的兴趣，特别是来自意义形成过程的边缘化如何为实践中结果的不公平分配创造条件。在此，我们提出了一种弹性评估的主观方法，分为两个阶段，从快速的家庭访谈开始，邀请参与者评估多重震惊和压力源故事情节的可能影响。第二步，采用参与式定性方法来支持对抵御力的归纳研究，重点是将那些报告相对较高和较低抵御力的因素区分开的因素。我们使用来自孟加拉国569户家庭的实地调查数据说明了这一点。这种主观的方法使家庭能够参与有关其抵御能力的知识的产生，从而揭示了异质性的两个核心特征：差异的形式和根本原因。根本原因是由高度因地制宜的社会，政治，经济和体制条件之间的相互作用和反馈引起的，显着的差异形式包括社区内部和标量异质性；易受特定或普遍冲击的影响；以及不良行为在确保弹性方面的作用。结果强调需要根据当地对of待的理解并通过表达有助于当地福祉观念的正义感来评估复原力。这意味着要超越实证主义的方法，将认知多样性置于复原力评估的中心，使人们对复原力如何和为何有所区别有了深刻的了解，并为政策和实践提供驱动力，以朝着公平的复原力发展提供一个分析起点。以及不良行为在确保弹性方面的作用。结果强调需要根据当地对of待的理解并通过表达有助于当地福祉观念的正义感来评估复原力。这意味着要超越实证主义的方法，将认知多样性置于复原力评估的中心，使人们对复原力如何和为何有所区别有了深刻的了解，并为政策和实践提供驱动力，以朝着公平的复原力发展提供一个分析起点。以及不良行为在确保弹性方面的作用。结果强调需要根据当地对of待的理解并通过表达有助于当地福祉观念的正义感来评估复原力。这意味着要超越实证主义的方法，将认知多样性置于复原力评估的中心，使人们对复原力如何和为何有所区别有了深刻的了解，并为政策和实践提供驱动力，以朝着公平的复原力发展提供一个分析起点。