Defining adversity in a research laboratory
By DeMaris Richardson ECU’21 and Jim Stellar
Dr. Humphreys highlighted how “adversity” is an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of experiences, yet there isn’t a universally accepted definition of what it truly looks like. She also discussed how different types of adversity impact distinct areas of the brain, depending on factors like severity, duration, and individual circumstances. While no single experience fully defines each type of adversity, this raises an important question: How do researchers categorize adversity, and how can we refine these classifications to better understand its implications?
This topic resonates with me (DR) because of the perspective I bring from working directly with children and families experiencing adversity. Nearly five years working in child welfare has exposed me to the realities behind the term “adversity,” where challenges such as housing instability, caregiver mental health struggles, and persistent economic stress shape the environments in which children grow and develop. Experiences like these rarely occur in isolation, and they often interact in ways that are difficult to capture within a single category or definition.
What I found most compelling in Dr. Humphreys’ work is the idea that adversity is not a single, uniform experience. The developmental impact of stress depends on factors like timing, context, and duration, which helps explain why two children exposed to similar circumstances can have very different outcomes. That insight reflects something I have seen repeatedly in practice. Adversity does not unfold in neat categories, and its effects rarely follow predictable patterns.
Working within a university research environment has further introduced me to the frameworks used to study these processes systematically. As someone early in my academic career, I am still learning how to translate observations from practice into research questions that can be explored scientifically. At the same time, reflecting on Dr.Hunphrey’s work has made me more aware of a broader challenge within the field. Much of the research on adversity is conducted within academic settings that can feel far removed from the environments where adversity is most deeply experienced. This distance can shape the questions researchers ask and the assumptions that guide how adversity is ultimately defined and studied.
Perspectives from individuals who have directly experienced or worked closely with adversity are not always centered in academic spaces, yet excluding those perspectives risks narrowing the field’s understanding of the very phenomena it seeks to explain. There are also structural barriers that influence who is represented in research samples. Families experiencing the highest levels of instability often face practical obstacles to participating in studies, which means the populations most affected by adversity may be underrepresented in the data used to study it. When these perspectives and experiences are absent, the knowledge produced about adversity can become disconnected from the realities it aims to describe. Recognizing these gaps highlights the importance of research approaches that better integrate lived experience with empirical investigation in order to develop a more accurate and meaningful understanding of childhood adversity.
This is why I (JS) like writing blogs with students. They say the hardest thing is to know what you do not know. And here as a majority culture male (and older too) I can see this happening to students and friends, but I cannot write about it with authenticity. You can. So, I say let’s get on with the next blog. This one can be brief and potent. In the next one we can pull-apart some of these ideas and explore them in more detail.
I (DR) agree. On to the next blog!
