Dyson College of Arts and Sciences

perturbations they and their communities experience. Children, learners, educational institutions, and sys- tems are positioned as responding to and absorbing disturbances within particular contexts. While be- ing able to respond to shocks in psychologically and ecologically sound ways is surely important given the myriad of crises and traumas in our world, we suggest that a potential issue with resilience in this framing is its overly reactive stance. at is, if one exists within a state whereby trauma and disturbance is always a pres- ent feature, perhaps one should instead reimagine this state in the first place. As such, educational work in- stead could focus on changing those conditions toward something oriented around socioecological flourish- ing (Curren and Metzger 2017). Resilience as object of inquiry and concern While academic institutions can bring new knowledge to resilience, it must also examine the inherent politics in maintaining those systems. Resilience frameworks can help create necessary reactive strategies for coping with system shocks; they do not necessarily provide pathways for reimagining the system. Said another way, the measurement of resilience itself becomes the man- agement target and ultimately maintains the system (Li 2007). is suggests that, if one particular outcome of resilience strategies means that social-ecological sys- tems can maintain their forms through shocks or reor- ganization, then it is important to understand why we want to maintain that system's form in the first place (Aalto and Ernstson 2017; Cronin 2019; Finewood and Martin 2016). So, revisiting the rhetorical question we pose in the introduction, it seems likely that resilience may become just another buzzword. However, the lit- erature we review above, as well as the papers in this symposium, shows that through ongoing critique and careful research, colleges and universities can still pro- duce effective and equitable resilience knowledge and practitioners. e papers in this symposium offer both con- tribution and critique. Authors include university pro- fessors, researchers, and collaborators, all working in diverse aspects of resilience through academia (but oen with non-academic partners). As a matter of inquiry, Ardito (2018) and Birney and Cronin (2018) emphasize the challenge of teaching resilience as both experiential and theoretical. Ardito shows how the field of environmental education must share knowl- edge and train teachers to better introduce and rein- force ideas about resilience if we want meaningful and just outcomes beyond the academy. Education is key for effective water resource management, in particular. Birney and Cronin illuminate the case study of the Bil- lion Oyster Project as a way to build resilience through collaboration with non-academic partners. US wa- terways present an ideal opportunity for place-based learning as well as extrapolation across different con- texts. Both manuscripts emphasize that experiential learning is key, but teachers must also link experience to conversations in the classrooms, which although tricky are critically important for effective outcomes. From the point of view of practice and assess- ment, Chowdhury's (2018) contribution on organi- zational models draws on diverse intellectual frame- works to improve resilience strategies. Exploring the contexts of Bangladesh and Pakistan, this manuscript demonstrates how organizational models from social entrepreneurship can help practitioners develop resil- ient water systems. Such strategies and methods from across fields can draw decision-makers out of more myopic approaches and, in particular, help diverse mu- nicipalities build a framework to achieve social objec- tives (Pacheco-Vega 2015). However, as communities and organizations adopt resilience strategies, we must also be wary and offer constructive critique. As a matter of con- cern, both DuPuis and Greenberg (2019) and Fink et al. (2018) turn their attention to this critique. Like Chowdhury, Fink, Finewood, and Molnar merge dif- ferent disciplinary frameworks to evaluate resilience strategies. is manuscript draws on an analysis of how journalists framed a proposed shoreline park called "Pier 55," planned for a location on the Hudson River adjacent to New York City. e author's show how journalistic coverage shied from substantive discussions about resilience to ones of conflict, obscur- ing important conversations about community needs and desires. is framing is critical in that it shapes how people understand and aspire to resilience as well as how communities adopt or reject these strate- gies. A key determination of this research is that resil- ience is not fixed, but rather always negotiated (Harris et al. 2017). In a similar multi-disciplinary approach, Du- Puis and Greenberg (2019) evaluate New York City's proposed "Big U" project, which would create resilient greenspaces around lower Manhattan. By drawing on Gould and Lewis's (2018) conceptualization of resilient growth machine politics, DuPuis and Greenberg look into the history of similar urban projects to ask how they have produced or ignored equitable outcomes for 7

• Cover