Abstract
The concept of resilience is explored across various research fields, from ecology, engineering, psychology, healthcare, and management (Bhamra et al., 2011). In general, the concept refers to the system's ability to return to its previous state following a disruptive event (Hosseini et al., 2016; Bhamra et al., 2011). This ability is especially important for safety-critical organisations that have to constantly manage various threats that could lead to major accidents (Reiman and Oedewald, 2009). Therefore, such organisations must maintain essential operational functions despite disruptive events. At first glance, it might seem that there is consensus on how the concept of resilience is understood across research disciplines, with the general definition and main elements of resilience being relatively similar (Bhamra et al., 2011); however, closer examination of the literature reveals that different research disciplines hold distinct views. Such differences are evident in the scope of their focus (e.g., systems, individuals, organisations), the time perspective (i.e., immediate versus long-term adaptation), and in the elements of resilience (Su and Junge, 2023; Hollnagel et al., 2006; Duchek, 2020). To successfully implement resilience in safety-critical organisations, we need a better understanding of how the concept is addressed across research disciplines in this context. Therefore, this paper provides a holistic overview that outlines the main differences and similarities in how resilience is understood. The aim is to deepen understanding of how findings from different research fields can be translated across disciplines to support a more holistic integration of the concept of resilience within safety-critical organisations.
