How Do Parentally Bereaved Emerging Adults Define Resilience? It's a Process

Emerging adulthood is the developmental period that spans roughly from ages 18 to 29 (Arnett, 2000, 2003). The proposal of emerging adulthood as a distinct developmental stage is rooted in demographic and cultural phenomena in the United States and other industrialized countries that have contributed to individuals’ later assumption of adult roles, particularly in the domains of love and work (Arnett, 2000, 2010; Tanner & Arnett, 2017). Although the demographic profile of college students in the United States is changing, most undergraduate students at public and for‐profit institutions fall within the age range of emerging adulthood (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017).

Individuals vary in their ability to successfully navigate emerging adulthood. Some benefit from experiencing the characteristic features associated with emerging adulthood: prominence of self‐focus, identity exploration, instability, feeling in‐between adolescence and adulthood, and a period of increased possibilities (Arnett, 2010). Others follow a maladaptive path (e.g., Arnett, 2000) that may include substance use disorders (Andrews & Westling, 2016; Sussman & Arnett, 2014), depression (Cohen et al., 2019), or difficulties managing romantic relationships (Michaeli et al., 2018). Bereavement is considered among the most stressful life experiences faced by young people and has a significant impact on how individuals experience emerging adulthood (Balk, 2011). Most individuals have experienced the loss of a loved one—a friend or family member with whom they had an important or meaningful relationship—by the time they are college age (Emergency Response and Crisis Management, 2007). Nearly one third of undergraduate students report the death of a family member or friend within the past 2 years (Balk et al., 2010).

The loss of a parent, specifically, has been associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (Melhem et al., 2008), depression (Berg et al., 2016), and increased rates of romantic relationship dissolution (H⊘eg et al., 2018). Among college students, the death of a parent has also been correlated with diminished academic performance in several domains, including decreased motivation, lack of concentration, and lower grades (Walker et al., 2012). Roughly 4% of children and adolescents have experienced the death of a parent, and these numbers increase by one's 20s (Melhem et al., 2011).

Although models and theories highlight general trends and themes associated with grief processes, the course and nature of bereavement varies from person to person and is culturally bound (Currier et al., 2013; Wong, 2012). The fact that bereavement is influenced by social norms and constructed in broad cultural and linguistic contexts has led to the development of popular discourse on this topic (Neimeyer et al., 2008, 2014). The discourse around grief in Western industrialized societies, based on research published over the past century, makes several assumptions: (a) grief is short term and finite, (b) grief follows a specific pattern that is quasilinear and includes several stages, (c) grief is a temporary state that should be worked through, (d) an end of the grieving process is characterized by gaining meaning from the death and detaching from the deceased, and (e) a persistence of the grieving process is abnormal and/or pathological (Breen & O'Connor, 2007; Granek, 2014; Neimeyer et al., 2014). Considered collectively, this discourse creates a framework for what society considers an appropriate grieving process, thereby compelling individuals to characterize their grief reactions as either normative or pathological.

Some models actively challenge popular grief discourse. Many scholars have written about the phenomenon of continuing bonds, asserting that having an ongoing connection with a deceased individual is a normative and adaptive aspect of grief (Klass et al., 2014). Other models, such as the dual process model of coping with bereavement, challenge the traditional stages of grief by conceptualizing bereavement as concurrent processes of coping with the loss of the deceased (loss orientation) and managing the secondary stressors associated with life changes caused by the loss (restoration orientation; Stroebe & Schut, 2010).

The construct of resilience can be used to better understand parentally bereaved college students who successfully navigate the emerging adulthood period. Resilience has been defined as an individual's ability to successfully adapt and function despite encountering persistent stress, adversity, or trauma (Masten, 2015). It is considered a dynamic and contextual construct, requiring (a) the presence of a threat to development, and (b) adaptation to the threat that is judged as “good,” in the sense that the individual is able to either engender a positive outcome or minimize or avoid negative consequences (Masten, 2001; Masten & Labella, 2016). Resilience is not simply the absence of diagnosable pathology, but rather refers to a pattern of stable, healthy adjustment following an aversive event (Bonanno, 2012). An understanding of resilience among parentally bereaved emerging adults can shed light on how these individuals define successful perseverance through challenges during this period and enable college counselors and other mental health care providers to better support them. A resilience framework also allows practitioners to focus on strengths and assets rather than pathology (Hamby et al., 2016) and to boost internal factors that may aid in a healthy transition to adulthood.

One way that resilience has been operationalized in the developmental literature is as an individual's competence in age‐salient tasks, or common and widespread developmental task expectations (Wright & Masten, 2015), such as an ability to establish social relationships with peers during childhood (Masten & Tellegen, 2012) and starting a family in adulthood (Masten et al., 2006). Identification of age‐salient developmental tasks provides a way to define benchmarks for competent functioning at a particular life stage, which in turn can predict adaptive functioning at later points in development (Burt et al., 2016; Cutuli & Herbers, 2018). An understanding of these age‐salient tasks can also help highlight promotive factors that boost resilience and the protective factors that have a moderating effect on the adversity and individual experiences (Masten & Barnes, 2018).

To date, the age‐salient tasks that define resilience among parentally bereaved emerging adults have not been studied. Instead, studies of resilience among emerging adults operationalize resilience according to the age‐salient tasks associated with childhood and adulthood (Luecken & Gress, 2010). This presents a methodological problem, as the factors that reflect resilience in childhood and adulthood may not operate the same way in emerging adulthood. The only way to fully understand resilience is to study it within specific developmental periods, because the assets and resources available to an individual change throughout the life span (Rutter, 2007). Determining the age‐salient tasks that define resilience among parentally bereaved emerging adults can offer insight into how emerging adults themselves describe resilience, allowing college counselors and other stakeholders to better support individuals during this developmental period.

This study contributes to the developmental research on resilience by addressing the following question among a sample of college students: What are the age‐salient tasks that define resilience among parentally bereaved emerging adults?

Method

Grounded theory (GT) was the guiding methodology of this study. Rather than beginning with a theory that the researcher hopes to prove, GT methodology asserts that theory is “grounded” in the data that have been collected from participants’ experiences of a phenomenon (Fassinger, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). GT methodology was used because it was consistent with the study goal of deriving a theory of the age‐salient tasks that participants use to define resilience (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).

Participants and Procedure

Approval from the university's institutional review board was obtained before beginning this study. A homogeneous, theoretical sample was recruited. According to GT, a theoretical sample targets participants who can best provide a greater understanding of a specific phenomenon on which limited previous knowledge exists (Glaser & Strauss, 2009). Participants were recruited from four universities in the Northeastern United States. These institutions were chosen because of the collective diversity of students they represented in the following areas: race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, family history of college attendance, and college major. Participants were recruited via an email notification about the study that was sent to all undergraduate students at their institution, as well as through printed flyers that were posted around the university. Participants received a $25 gift card at the beginning of their interview as compensation for being part of the study.

Ten to 12 participants were targeted for this study, although the exact number of participants was dictated by achievement of saturation, or redundancy of findings (Charmaz, 2006). In order to be eligible, participants had to consider themselves to be resilient following the death of a parent and be able and willing to share their experiences (Creswell, 2012). We used Masten's (2001, 2011) language related to definitions of resilience, recruiting individuals who considered themselves to be “doing OK” following the death of a parent. To be eligible, participants also had to (a) have lost a parent in the past 3 years, (b) have had at least 1 year pass since their parent's death, and (c) be at least 21 years of age. Ensuring that at least 1 year had passed since the parent's death made it more likely that participants would be in the same stage of grief, regardless of the cause of their parent's death (Balk, 2011). Being at least 21 years old made their age when the parent passed away within the age range of emerging adulthood (at least 18 years; Arnett, 2000).

There were 10 participants (N = 10) in this study, ranging in age from 22 to 27 years (µ = 24.7, M = 25, SD = 2). Eight of the participants were female and two were male. Demographic characteristics of the participants were gathered via a survey that was sent to them after all of the interviews had been conducted; however, only two participants returned the survey. One participant identified as female, White, and queer, and the other identified as female, White, and bisexual. Three of the participants had experienced the death of both of their parents during their life, and seven had experienced the death of one parent. For those participants whose parents had both died, the interview for this study focused on their reactions to the parent who had died most recently (although the death of their other parent was considered in the analysis). Of the participants who experienced the death of one parent, four had lost their father and three had lost their mother.

The time since the parent's passing ranged from just over 1 year to 2.5 years before the date of the interview (µ = 1.37, M = 1.3, SD = 0.4). Half of the participants described their relationship with the parent who died as “close,” “really close,” or “very close.” Among the remaining five, one characterized his mother as a caretaker, one described herself as “estranged” from the parent who had passed away, and three described varying levels of distance and/or independence from their parent. Nine of the participants’ parents died from an illness or an illness‐related cause (e.g., an “insulin mishap” of one participant's mother who had Type 1 Diabetes). Eight participants considered their parent's death to be expected or “somewhat expected”; the remaining two considered their parent's death to be unexpected.

Data Collection and Analysis

Participants were interviewed for 45 to 60 minutes at their university or a confidential setting of their choosing. Interviews were audiotaped and followed a predetermined list of open‐ended questions related to (a) rapport building/general questions, (b) what it meant to be doing OK, (c) the process of becoming OK, and (d) additional comments. Interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using the qualitative research software data analysis package NVivo for Mac (QSR International, 2010). Consistent with GT, transcripts were coded in the following three stages: (a) open coding, (b) axial coding, and (c) selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Fassinger, 2005; Glaser & Strauss, 2009).

Open coding constituted the first step in analysis (see Figure 1) and involved breaking down transcribed data into labeled concepts (Fassinger, 2005). For example, the following text segments were labeled according to the concept lack of connectivity: “There was a lot of inability to relate to people around me anymore,” “I had felt really, really distant from the world around me,” and “I shut the world out.” During axial coding (see Figure 2), concepts were grouped into broader categories based on relationships among them (Charmaz, 2006). At this level, the concept lack of connectivity was grouped with other concepts (e.g., anger, breaking down, and difficulty tolerating reminders of the deceased parent) into the category called indications of not doing OK. The constant comparative method was used during this stage of coding, with the goal of generating an analysis that was most reflective of the data by producing numerous themes, categories, and hypotheses related to the phenomenon (Creswell, 2012). Finally, the selective coding stage involved creating a substantive theory from the data by weaving together the categories and processes identified in the previous coding phases. Participants’ narratives were conceptualized through the process of theoretical memo writing. Data triangulation, investigator triangulation, analytical triangulation, and bracketing were also implemented in this study to ensure validity (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

Figure 1

How Concepts Were Developed in the Open Coding Level of Analysis

Figure 2

How Categories Were Developed in the Axial Coding Level of Analysis

Results

Analysis of the study findings yielded themes related to (a) indications of not doing OK, (b) indications of doing OK, and (c) factors that facilitated the process of becoming OK.

Indications of Not Doing OK

Indications of not doing OK were (a) not feeling like oneself; (b) feeling a lack of emotional, physical, and/or academic connectivity; (c) breaking down in connection to the death; (d) being uncharacteristically sad or depressed; (e) being angry; and (f) becoming emotional and/or feeling intense emotion when confronted with reminders of the deceased parent.

A common indication of not doing OK was the idea of not feeling like oneself. Many participants discussed discrete ways in which they felt different than before their parent passed away. One participant stated that her worldview became uncharacteristically negative: “I started seeing people in a different way, like not seeing the good in people anymore, more seeing the bad in them, and saying like, ‘I know so many assholes and nothing bad ever happens to them.’”

Another participant echoed these sentiments, stating, “I wasn't seeing the good in things anymore, and I just wasn't as enthusiastic about anything, really.”

[My father] passed away in early October, and I know that the month of October happened, but I can't tell you for the life of me what I did or where I was for that entire month. I was just completely withdrawn.

Another noted, “I just wanted to be left alone. I didn't want to be bothered with anyone.” Interviewees also cited a lack of connectivity to schoolwork as part of their experience of not being OK. One participant explained, “I would be reading something, doing research for an art history paper, and I would think, ‘I don't care about this. What do I care?’” Another participant discussed doing her assignments, but not feeling connected to or engaged in them: “I was checked out. I was doing the assignments, but I wasn't putting anything into them. I was checking boxes, like, ‘I need to get these credits.’”

The phenomenon of breaking down emerged as another indication of not doing OK. Although this concept was described in different ways, in all the cases in which it was mentioned, breaking down or having a breakdown was characterized by an expression of grief that was emotionally charged and often involved crying. In many cases, a variation of this phrase was used specifically. For example, one participant shared, “On the plane ride back home, I remember having kind of like a breakdown on the plane, where I just started crying.” Another noted, “[Reminders of my dad] would stir things up, and I would break down. I would start crying.” The phenomenon of breaking down was also evident in the emotional reactions participants had during the interviews. At such moments, participants apologized to the interviewer and made a comment to assure her that they were really doing OK. For example, when one interviewee became tearful, she stated, “Sorry. I'm so sorry. Normally, I do fine talking about it.” By virtue of being in the study, participants had already assessed themselves as doing OK. The apologies and qualifying comments, therefore, stemmed from a belief that reacting in this manner was incongruent with doing OK.

Participants cited being uncharacteristically sad or depressed as another sign that they were not doing OK. One participant shared, “I guess I was kind of depressed. Just really, really sad.” Another stated, “For me it looked like a lot of crying, a lot of being in bed all the time, a lot of inability to relate to people around me.” Finally, they named anger and becoming emotional and/or feeling intense emotion when confronted with reminders of the deceased parent as indications of not doing OK. One participant shared, “I would get mad at dumb stuff and make a big deal about it. I was just getting so upset, and I would snap at people.”

Indications of Doing OK

Participants’ indications of doing OK following their parent's death were (a) feeling as though they had at least partially returned to their “old selves,” (b) feeling connected to and/or engaged in life, (c) being able to face reminders of their deceased parent with comparatively less sadness, and (d) staying in school.

My personality more or less is really what changed, and so getting back to being happy or positive again. I feel like that was my normal—being a positive person—and after my dad passed away, I wasn't that way.

Another indicator of doing OK was feeling connected to and/or engaged in life. One interviewee noted, “I'm starting to finally feel connected again. I feel much more alive, awake, and into what I'm doing. I just started feeling more of that mental presence.”

Some interviewees considered themselves to be doing OK when it was comparatively less difficult for them to confront reminders of their deceased parent. One participant explained, “Now I can face [reminders of my dad] and not have a mental breakdown. I feel like that's progress.” Another participant talked about spending time with her late father's extended family, stating, “I feel like I wouldn't have been able to deal with all of them a year ago. It would have made me really sad to see them all together and everything. And now I'm able to get happiness from it.” Finally, some considered their commitment to staying in school as an indicator that they were doing OK. As one participant noted, “I definitely think ‘doing OK’ is what I would describe myself as. I'm still in school, and when both of my parents passed away, I was in school. I didn't drop out for the semester.”

Factors That Facilitated the Process of Becoming OK

Several factors contributed to the process of becoming OK. Assets and resources are two categories of resilience‐promoting factors that are discussed in the literature. Assets are factors that are found within the individual, whereas resources are external factors (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Participants cited the following assets as helpful in their process of becoming OK: (a) adopting an adult role, (b) having a positive attitude, and (c) inner strength. Resources included (a) family, (b) friends, (c) having the goal of completing college and/or academic success, (d) maintaining their usual routine, and (e) talking about the death. Participants also named factors that were specific to their relationship with the deceased parent as helpful. These relational factors included (a) knowing the deceased parent would be proud of them, (b) knowing the parent was no longer suffering, and (c) not having a close relationship with the parent who died.

Discussion

This study sought to contribute to the developmental research on resilience by addressing the following question among a sample of college students: What are the age‐salient tasks that define resilience among parentally bereaved emerging adults? Prior to this study, no such tasks had been identified for the emerging adulthood period. The following were found to be the common age‐salient tasks participants used to define themselves as resilient in the wake of losing a parent: (a) returning to one's old self, (b) feeling connected to and/or engaged in life, (c) having comparatively less difficulty tolerating reminders of their deceased parent, and (d) staying in school.

Conceptualizations of doing OK versus not doing OK following the death of a parent are informed by how one makes meaning of the loss. Analysis of the results indicated that the primary way that participants made meaning of their experiences was by drawing on the following aspects of popular grief discourse: (a) indications of not doing OK and doing OK, (b) grief as a short‐term and finite process, (c) grief as something to be worked through, and (d) grief as a linear process of stages. Thus, the benchmarks identified in this study should be understood in the context of these aspects of popular grief discourse. Analysis of the results reveals the ways in which participants’ experiences were incongruent with this discourse and the limiting nature of popular grief discourse for promoting resilience.

Indications of Not Doing OK and Doing OK

The primary indications of not doing OK that were named by participants reflected the popular discourse that grief is a state that should be moved through and has a finite end point resulting in a return to who the person was and the life they had before the loss (e.g., Breen & O'Connor, 2007). Feeling a lack of connection to oneself and/or one's preloss world, as well as experiencing a shift in one's personality, were indications to interviewees that they were not doing OK. Furthermore, although sadness is often considered to be an adaptive emotion (Greenberg, 2015), here it emerged as an indication of not being OK. This again reflects popular discourse that pathologizes feelings of intense sadness that are associated with grief (Harris, 2010). The assessment of breaking down as problematic (i.e., not doing OK) is also based on popular grief discourse, which sets parameters for the nature and intensity of emotion that characterizes a normative grief process.

Participants’ indications of doing OK also reflected what society deems as the completion of a “normative” grieving process. The notion of feeling connected to and/or engaged in life as it was before the parent's death is consistent with discourse that frames grief as a process that is to be completed and that results in a return to one's preloss self (Breen & O'Connor, 2007). Similarly, society's rules about what constitutes a normal versus abnormal grief reaction dictated whether reminders of loved ones were indications of doing OK versus not doing OK. Reactions were evaluated according to the extent to which one was able to manage the pain associated with being reminded of the deceased parent without a reaction that the discourse deems abnormal or inappropriate. In this way, using this definition of the construct of resilience strengthened reliance on the popular grief discourse that dichotomizes grief as “normal” or “abnormal.”

Grief as a Short‐Term and Finite Process

The discourse of grief as a short‐term and finite process emerged in participants’ discussions of what it was like for them to become OK. Participants expressed feeling the expectation that there was a limited amount of time they were allowed to grieve following the death of their parent before themselves and others considered there to be something “wrong” with them. These perceptions are consistent with discourse that frames grief as a short and finite period (Granek, 2014) and as a time‐limited process that has a definitive start and end point (Neimeyer et al., 2014). According to this discourse, individuals who are grieving are expected to “move on” from the loss in a certain amount of time, or else their grief is considered abnormal or problematic (Granek & O'Rourke, 2011).

Grief as Something to Be Worked Through

Participants discussed grief as something that needed to be addressed and worked through, whether that was through therapy, talking to friends and family, and/or psychopharmacology. They also received messages from others about the importance of doing “grief work” in order to “deal with” a parent's death. The belief that grief needs to be “worked on” and “moved through” is consistent with grief discourse, which suggests that individuals have a responsibility to do “grief work” that will progress through beginning, middle, and end stages (Granek, 2014). If the griever does not proceed through this work in a certain amount of time, then their grief is considered problematic—and often described as a psychological illness—and they are expected to seek therapeutic and/or psychopharmacological help (Wong, 2012).

Grief as a Linear Process of Stages

The notion of “stages of grief” was referred to repeatedly, as was the implication that grief is a continuous and linear process in which painful feelings dissipate over time (Breen & O'Connor, 2007; Granek, 2014; Neimeyer et al., 2014). The idea that grief is linear was considered to be incongruent with participants’ actual bereavement experiences. Grief was instead posited as being circular, continuous, and characterized by oscillating feelings of varying intensity. For this reason, the linear structure imposed by the stages of grief—and the accompanying implication that feelings of grief diminish with time—was criticized and named as unhelpful by participants.

Another aspect of this discourse is the assumption that there is an end to the stages of grief that is characterized by gaining meaning from the loss, detaching from the deceased, and accepting the death (Granek, 2014). Participants also highlighted this as being inconsistent with their grief experiences. Interviewees expressed that although it became comparatively less difficult to tolerate reminders of the deceased parent, there were still moments—and/or longer periods of time—in which these feelings returned. And, rather than feeling detached from the deceased, doing OK included staying connected to their deceased parent and reflecting positively on their memory. This supports research on the adaptive function of continuing bonds with the deceased (Klass et al., 2014).

The reflections of popular grief discourse integrated into participants’ narratives show that the discussion of grief as adaptive or maladaptive remains very active (Kaplow et al., 2013). Applying the construct of resilience as it is frequently operationalized in the developmental literature reinforces a reliance on this discourse, as it forces individuals to categorize their experiences in dichotomous terms and to evaluate what it means for them to be doing OK versus not doing OK. This serves to strengthen their use of the popular grief discourse rather than search for language that would better reflect their experiences. This is problematic not only because the participants indicated that the popular grief discourse was often incongruent with their own experiences, but also because the popular grief discourse that they drew on to make meaning of their experiences pathologized their grief.

Resilience as a Process

Participants in this study highlighted a number of age‐salient tasks that they considered to be indicators of doing OK following the death of their parent. Furthermore, they defined doing OK as a fluid and every‐changing process. The idea of doing OK was discussed in the context of a comparison or degree (e.g., more OK or less OK) rather than dichotomously as doing OK or not doing OK. Participants indicated that their feelings of being relatively OK or not OK fluctuated, with oscillating moments of different feelings. The process of doing OK was also described as gradual and without a finite end point. Furthermore, it was considered to be circular, rather than linear, which is how the stages of grief are discussed in much of the popular grief discourse.

Can a person be resilient if this concept is considered relative and ever‐changing? The death of a loved one, and particularly a parent, is frequently cited as a traumatic event to which the construct of resilience is applied (e.g., Masten, 2011). However, as the results of this study indicate, “doing OK” is a relative term. By their own accounts, the individuals in this study did qualify as resilient (Masten, 2001) in that they were faced with and overcame adversity enough to categorize themselves as doing OK. That being said, the benchmarks associated with doing OK versus not doing OK—especially as dictated by popular grief discourse—did not adequately capture the complexity of the participants’ bereavement experiences.

These findings underscore the limitations of dichotomously categorizing individuals as either resilient or nonresilient (Luecken & Gress, 2010; Ungar, 2003). Critics point to the fact that arbitrary cutoffs that are used to classify outcomes of resilient versus nonresilient individuals provide a limited—and perhaps skewed—perspective of the individual's experience (Luecken & Gress, 2010). The results of this study support these limitations of resilience in capturing individuals’ experiences of grief and characterizing them as doing OK. Furthermore, the results indicate that such an operationalization strengthens reliance on popular grief discourse that may pathologize grief, which is antithetical to the strength‐promoting framework posed by this construct (Delgado‐Romero et al., 2012). When used in a way that facilitates making meaning of bereavement as a fluid experience, the construct of resilience can prove useful in highlighting the feelings and behaviors that are part of this process.

The theory derived from this study is that resilience is a process. Operationalizing resilience in this way honors the fluid, nonlinear, and continuous nature of bereavement. This theory is consistent with the research of other scholars who have conceptualized resilience as a process (Bonnano, 2012; Bonanno et al., 2011; Stroebe & Schut, 2010). In the case of parentally bereaved college students, the following age‐salient tasks should be considered contextually as a part of this process: (a) returning to one's old self, (b) feeling connected to and/or engaged in life, (c) having comparatively less difficulty tolerating reminders of the deceased parent, and (d) staying in school. Conceptualizing resilience as a process will afford bereaved individuals more flexibility in describing their experiences. Rather than having to choose between doing OK and not doing OK—and relying on popular grief discourse that is presented in equally dichotomous terms—these individuals will have more freedom to use language that better describes their experiences. This, in turn, will assist in the process of meaning making, which will help emerging adults who are grieving make sense of the loss in terms that resonate with them. Applying this construct of resilience will reinforce discourse that honors the fluid and circular nature of the grieving process (e.g., Stroebe & Schut, 2010) and limit the use of labels that categorize grief reactions as normal or abnormal.

Recommendations for College Counselors

College counselors can best support bereaved emerging adults by honoring the fact that resilience in the wake of a parent's death is a process. They should consider the extent to which their bereaved clients feel connected to themselves, to important aspects of their lives (e.g., school), and to those around them. They should also help these individuals identify assets and resources that may assist them in managing their feelings associated with the loss, including inner strength, adopting a positive outlook, seeking support from family and friends, maintaining a routine, and setting/pursuing personal goals. College counselors should also consider factors that are specific to the relationship between the individual and their deceased parent that might be helpful. The results of this study emphasize the fact that there is no one way—and no right or wrong way—to grieve, and that the only thing one can expect from the process of bereavement is change.

The language that college counselors use to discuss loss‐related phenomena is a critical dimension of work with bereaved emerging adults (Corless et al., 2014; Hooghe & Neimeyer, 2012). The language that is adopted with these individuals should address the fluid and ever‐changing nature of the bereavement process (Silverman, 2007). Bereaved emerging adults may find that in the wake of loss, their lives have changed forever, and that grief is an ongoing process of change that does not have a clear end point (Stroebe & Schut, 2010). Limiting the use of language that suggests that bereavement is a finite process—such as the terms “recovery” or “moved on”—can help support an understanding of bereavement as a continuously changing process.

Limitations and Future Research

In this study, the survey used to collect demographic information from participants was not distributed until after the interviews took place. As a result, the demographic background of most participants was not known and could not be considered in the analysis. The sample itself was small and therefore limited in diversity of participant backgrounds. Phrasing interview questions according to the dichotomy that characterizes current operationalization of resilience (i.e., doing OK versus not doing OK) is also a limitation of this study. This presentation encouraged participants to highlight their bereavement experiences according to times they were doing OK versus not doing OK. Thus, the interview questions may have implicitly encouraged them to both reflect popular grief discourse and evaluate themselves in terms that negatively and positively labeled aspects of their grief experience.

The results of this study leave many questions that should be addressed in future research. Additional research is needed to test the theory proposed in this study, the usefulness of conceptualizing resilience as a process among parentally bereaved emerging adults, and the factors that facilitate the grieving process. Future studies should consider how using this nondichotomous definition affects language use and subsequent meaning making among this population. In addition, future studies should address specific strategies that college counselors can use to support resilience among bereaved college students. Research is needed to address questions related to the impact that different demographic and death‐related variables have on conceptualizations of resilience among parentally bereaved emerging adults, as well as how different demographic and situational variables associated with the parent's death either facilitate or impede the process of resilience among this population.