651
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY & COUNSELLING

Resilience process in Bidikmisi students: understanding risk, protective and promotive factor, and resilient outcome

ORCID Icon, , &
Article: 2143616 | Received 15 Dec 2020, Accepted 31 Oct 2022, Published online: 30 Jan 2023

Abstract

University students have to face academic and non-academic challenges. These challenges are especially crucial for Bidikmisi students that possibly face financial, social, and psychological risks, affecting their ability to flourish in the university. Therefore, they need to overcome different adversities than other students. This study aimed to examine the pathways to resilient educational outcomes by investigating protective factors buffering the Bidikmisi students’ risks. A collective case study approach was used which consisted of two phases. Online survey data were collected from 178 students that started university for Phase 1 in 2018. After that, we used in-depth interviews with 16 students who met the inclusion criteria for Phase 2 in 2020. Furthermore, the thematic analysis with Ungar’s socio-ecological resilience framework was used with a deductive and inductive approach. The results showed seven themes in the risk exposure component, such as culture shock. There were fourteen themes in the Protective and Promotive Factors Process (PPFP), including positive mindset and spirituality. The desired outcomes had four themes, including academic achievement. The socio-ecological resilience framework effectively characterizes the resilience process of students during education. Moreover, the findings assist in further research to design a resilience intervention program for students at risk.

Public Interest Statements

The Fourth Sustainable Development Goal is Quality Education, which aims to educate all, including student-at-risk. One of the efforts made by the Indonesian government to give quality education to students at-risk is giving scholarships called Bidikmisi. Bidikmisi students are Indonesia’s higher education students from disadvantaged social and economic backgrounds, who receive some financial support from the government. Therefore, they are categorized as student-at-risk, and resilience is essential to help them overcome their high-risk condition. Resilience is acknowledged as an important construct that helps individuals flourish. Cultivating resilience requires understanding its process, including the dynamic between risk and protective factors and desired outcomes. It was important to consider the culture and geographic region from a resilience socio-ecological framework because it may have different dynamics between cultures. Therefore, an explorative qualitative study is needed to determine the resilience process in Indonesia’s population.

1. Introduction

University students are challenged to cultivate their potential of becoming future academicians or practitioners. Therefore, they must successfully adapt to any global change using science, technology, and life skills (Bellanca, Citation2010; Van Laar et al., Citation2017). These challenges are not always easy to adapt to because the students should attend classes and discussions, research, and finish academic and non-academic projects (Khasanah & Herina, Citation2019).

In Indonesia, there are several ways to become university students. Firstly, they can compete in the national selection for public universities. Secondly, they can take the exam at each university (both public and private universities). Finally, for the students who have difficulty continuing education, they can participate in the government’s program called Bidikmisi.

1.1. Bidikmisi students as students at risk in Indonesian higher education

Bidikmisi students are funded by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education, regarding their underprivileged financial condition. Bidikmisi makes higher education accessible for potential candidates to study at a prestigious university and graduate in time. The students are selected based on academic merit and economic inadequacy. They are aided with tuition fees and are supplied with a regular living cost of at least IDR 700,000 per month (Bidikmisi, Citation2020) for their four study years. Furthermore, besides receiving financial assistance, they are obligated to fulfill the Bidikmisi requirements. For instance, they must maintain their GPA above 2.75, actively participate in non-academic activities, and graduate in four years or less. This ensures they do not lose financial aid, resulting in study discontinuation.

To maintain their merit for financial aid, Bidikmisi students commonly face various obstacles from their unique adversities. Specifically, they are more pressured by the expectation and stress to meet the requirements of Bidikmisi. Moreover, they must be strict with living finances due to costly spending on academic and non-academic necessities and because financial aid from Bidikmisi often comes late (Ainii, Citation2017; Kustiasih & Kurniawan, Citation2013). The financial limitation might make them cut expenses on basic needs, such as food, and lack of learning facilities, including gadgets, books, and other relatively expensive materials. Therefore, the students are at higher risk of being distracted and experiencing academic failure (Afrila, Citation2011; Lestari, Citation2018; Musabiq et al., Citation2018). Subsequently, Bidikmisi students are classified as student-at-risk.

1.2. The need for resilience in Bidikmisi students

Despite distraction from learning and improving in university, some Bidikmisi students remain focused and flourish in academic and non-academic tasks. They maintain their GPA above average, participate in non-academic activities, and preserve their well-being and zeal to succeed (Bidikmisiwp, Citation2019; Formadiksiumrah, Citation2021; Grid, Citation2019; Malang, Citation2021; Tinggi, Citation2020).

The students’ capacity and process to bounce back from significant adversities are called resilience (Ungar & Liebenberg, Citation2011; Ungar & Theron, Citation2020; Yeung & Li, Citation2019). According to Masten (Citation2001), resilience is identified through good outcomes despite threats to development or adaptation. Moreover, Young (Citation2010) defined resilience as the personal capacity to remain calm and directed during hardship or suffering. Windle (Citation2011) stated that resilience comprises individual or environmental assets to bounce back and adapt amid adversity. Therefore, it is the opportunity to grow more than under common circumstances (Amering & Schmolke, Citation2009; Kalisch et al., Citation2015; Onken et al., Citation2007; Tusaie & Dyer, Citation2004). There are many resilience definitions, though most have similar components, such as risk factors, promotive and protective factors and processes (PPFP), and resilient outcomes (Ungar & Theron, Citation2020).

Individuals need resilience to meet their purpose and sustain mental health, positive changes, and development to flourish and succeed (Ungar & Theron, Citation2020; Yeung & Li, Citation2019). The same applies to Bidikmisi students. Resilience studies are important to identify the supports needed for health and well-being for people at-risk(Ayed et al., Citation2019; Masten & Cicchetti, Citation2016). Previous studies discovered pathways to gain these resilient outcomes through protective factors, such as diligence, endurance, perseverance (Chee, Citation2019), and financial assistance. Other protective factors include supportive relationships, desirable identity, the experience of control and justice, adherence to culture, social cohesion (Ungar et al., Citation2019), companion animals, and internet resources (Arat & Wong, Citation2019). These protective factors show that resilience is cultivated by internal and external factors and various individual considerations. Therefore, this socio-ecological framework concerning contextual realities and cultural norms must be considered to understand students’ resilience (Ungar & Theron, Citation2020; Wilkinson, Citation2012; Yeung & Li, Citation2019).

1.3. Current study

In this study, Bidikmisi students are chosen specifically concerning their unique risks as they should be better targeted for intervention (Yeung & Li, Citation2019). Yeung and Li (Citation2019) also mentioned that how Asian students perceive risk factors should be evaluated because this differentiates eastern from western studies of educational resilience. Previous studies about Bidikmisi students’ resilience are still limited. There are a few protective factors identified, such as social support, self-efficacy (Mufidah, Citation2017), and the seven factors by Reivich and Shatte (Zahra et al., Citation2021). Other studies focus more on some significant factors of Bidikmisi students’ achievement, namely learning facilities, motivation (Arrixavier & Wulanyani, Citation2020), financial aid, peers, and learning habit (Afrila, Citation2011), which had not explained the whole dynamics of how Bidikmisi students’ strive from their struggle by understanding their multisystemic risk and protective factors.

This qualitative study took a look into the Bidikmisi students’ perspective on their unique risk factors, also how they perceive protective factors and success as resilient outcomes, which could be influenced by their specific ethnic culture in Indonesia. The dynamic process is better explained with this longitudinal study by choosing those Bidikmisi students who have performed good resilience from their first year until their current condition.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to look into this dynamic process that happens at the individual level with the interaction with their environment. What are the specific risk and protective factors these resilient Bidikmisi students perceive in their process to achieve their desired outcomes? It is important to understand the dynamic process of resilience in Bidikmisi students. This study is essential in understanding the best protective factors to tackle risks and cultivate desired resilient outcomes in a specific context (i.e. students at risk in higher education). Since the study is conducted in eastern society (i.e. Indonesia), it also may give a different perspective on resilience in western society

2. Methods

2.1. Study design and location

A qualitative research design with a collective case study approach was used to explore and identify the risk exposure, protective and promotive factor process, and desired resilient outcome of Bidikmisi students in Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia.

This study consists of two phases. In Phase 1, the research was conducted in October 2018 on all Bidikmisi first-year students of Padjadjaran University batch 2018. This phase aimed to determine Bidikmisi students’ perceptions of the resilience process. In Phase 2, data collection was then resumed at the beginning of 2020 (two years after the first phase). We chose this time interval because at the first year most Bidikmisi students focused on adaptation and academic achievement. Meanwhile, by their second year, they started to engage in non-academic activities (e.g., student union and other extracurricular involvement). We assumed that within the two-year time frame and in relation to those various activities the Bidikmisi students would have experienced failures and successes from which to describe their resilience processes. This phase aims to determine an actual description of resilience. In addition, there were also procedural obstacles that we have to resolve from 2018 to 2020, such as participants who are difficult to contact and are not willing to participate in data collection in a later phase.

2.2. Participant and recruitment process

The population in this study was the 2018 Bidikmisi students who studied at Universitas Padjadjaran. Bidikmisi students are students who receive tuition assistance from the government in Indonesia for high school graduates who have good academic potential but have economic limitations. In Phase 1, the population comprised 211 Bidikmisi students batch 2018 from 16 faculties. The convenience sampling method was used to select 178 students who were chosen by the student affairs division.

Phase 2 involved purposive sampling in selecting the resilient Bidikmisi students with GPAs of more than 3.25. Also, the students had to be active participants in the non-academic activity of the faculty or university, such as organizations, associations, extracurricular or other positive activities. Performance Index and Grade Point Average (GPA) data of 16 students that met the inclusion criteria were obtained from the student affairs division of Universitas Padjadjaran.

All participants filled out informed consent before the online survey and interviews, while their confidentiality was ensured by the principal researchers. Furthermore, the participants could choose to proceed or withdraw from the study at any time. This study was approved by Universitas Padjadjaran Ethics Committee (739/UN6.KEP/EC/2020).

2.3. Data collection and analysis

The data collection process in Phase 1 (first phase) was conducted in 2018 through an online survey using Google Form. This online survey was distributed by a researcher to Bidikmisi students batch 2018 during the program provided by the student affairs division at Universitas Padjadjaran. The participants were asked to fill out an online survey consisting of three open questions. The questions asked about the form of success, the aspects that help achieve desired outcomes, and those that interfere with success. The survey results were automatically recorded in Microsoft Excel.

Phase 2 involved an in-depth interview, where data were collected from 16 Bidikmisi students selected from the Phase 1 sample using maximum variation sampling (i.e., purposively choosing sample to increase variation of participants). . The interview question was designed to probe the students’ answers from the previous phase and ask for their experiences related to resilience. The interview guideline could be seen in Table . Interviews were conducted by two research assistants that previously attended training for data retrieval through interviews by the principal investigator. The interviews lasted for 2–2.5 hours via Google Meet and were recorded in audio and video. The research assistants then made verbatim transcripts of the interview results for each participant individually.

Table 1. In-depth interview guideline

Data and transcripts were analyzed by thematic analysis and NVivo version 11.0.0 and Microsoft Excel, respectively. In the first phase, the data were analyzed deductively by the principal investigator. It involved categorizing the participants’ answers to themes from Ungar’s framework into risk exposure, protective and promotive factors, or desired resilient outcomes. Furthermore, the two raters analyzed the data inductively by themselves. We calculated percentage agreement for reliability by dividing the number of agreements with the total number of agreements and disagreements (Miles & Huberman, Citation1994). The percentage agreement between deductive analysis (by the principal investigator) and inductive analysis (by two raters) was 67%, indicating that 67 out of 100 coding frames (particularly name and definition) were agreed upon by all raters. After that, we further discussed the themes on which the agreement couldn’t be made. The second phase involved deductive analysis by the assistant and inductively by the principal investigator. Thus themes emerged in every category of the socio-ecological resilience framework and to these were cross-checked with themes that emerged in the first phase analyses. The percentage agreement of the second phase was 75%.

2.4. Credibility and trustworthiness

The researcher used interpreter triangulation to check the findings’ accuracy. According to Creswell , different data sources are triangulated by examining evidence and building a coherent justification for themes (Creswell, Citation2009). Each researcher and the assistant read the evidence (i.e. interview manuscripts) and develop themes individually. To ensure credibility, we discussed how to emerge the themes inductively before the analysis (i.e. case study protocol). After that, we had a key informant review our analysis report. The reviews by key informants may improve the accuracy of the analysis as well as clarify several competing perspectives (Baskarada, Citation2014). The key informant, he/she confirmed our findings and help us to identify a more precise name for several themes.

3. Findings

3.1. Characteristics of participants

Phase 1 has 178 Bidikmisi students that participated in the 2018s study. Based on Table , most of the participants were female (65.7%). Moreover, most participants come from the Sundanese ethnic group (56.7%). The other ethnicities consist of the Betawi, Padang, Malay, Minangkabau, Lampung, Chinese, Bangka-Tionghoa, Batak-Sundanese, and Betawi-Sundanese tribes. Most participants “fathers” jobs are laborers (29.2%), while others include security officers, rump seekers, clerics, parking attendants, honorary, ice depot and factory employees, and insurance agents. Also, there are cleaners, P3N (Marriage Registration Assistants), hamlet heads, bettor, construction workers, and those separated. Most participants’ mothers are housewives (69.7%). The average family income is Rp1,198,256.74/month (81 USD/month), while the average number of siblings is two.

Phase 2 involved 16 Bidikmisi students that participated in the 2020s’ study. They had similar characteristics to phase 1s participants (Table ).

Table 2. Demographic Data (n1 = 178; n2 = 16)

3.2. Emerging categories

Table shows emerging categories from deductive and inductive thematic analyses. The term “category” was used to represent every component of Ungar’s Socioecological Resilience Framework, while “theme” represents nodes developed from data. Phase 1s’ themes emerge from students’ imagination of what might happen in their university life. Conversely, Phase 2s’ themes emerge from their actual experiences in their university life.

Table 3. Emerging Categories in Phase 1 & Phase 2

Phase 1ʹs findings are validated and completed by Phase 2ʹs findings. Thus, we will only explain the final themes of each category and give evidence from each phase.

3.3. Category 1: risk exposure

Risk exposure factor(s) may interfere with students’ success and increase failure chances in the education context. Therefore, it is an adverse condition in resilience study. Table shows the sample of evidence for risk exposures. There are seven risk factors in Bidikmisi students’ life. Most participants in Phases 1 and 2 consider their financial condition the most often risk exposed to them, consisting of family and student financial condition. In addition, the limited access to some facilities (e.g., daily transportation, facilities supporting the learning process) increase the amount of expenditure so which makes the students more difficult to manage their finances.

Table 4. Risk Exposures in Bidikmisi Students

The second theme is family background. This theme emerges in Phase 2, covering the psychological events in students’ families, such as parenting, parents’ death, and divorce. Some participants could not focus on studying because they have to support their family income. Few participants did not have support from their parents so they have to prove their capability, while others have supportive parents that always pray for them and listen to their stories in university.

The third and fourth themes are the social expectation and social exclusion. The social expectation is how others (e.g., lecturers, peers, parents) perceive Bidikmisi students and expect them to do. Meanwhile, social exclusion is when Bidikmisi students find “separation” in their social life, with a strong exclusivity. The fifth theme is culture shock. This theme includes a “gap” between students’ original and campus socio-cultural norms. Culture shock usually happens because the new environment has a very different environment from what they imagine. It is also indicated by homesickness which is a lonely feeling and wanting to go back to their family home.

The sixth and seventh themes are related to individual characteristics: personality traits and physical endurance. The personal trait only covers the individual’s negative attributes and characteristics. Some personal traits that become a risk for Bidikmisi students are low self-confidence, insecurity, overthinking, and “people pleasuring”. The low physical endurance includes failure to manage their health and physical condition during the study.

3.4. Category 2: promotive and protective factor and process (PPFP)

Promotive and protective factors and processes (PPFP) help students buffer the risk exposure and bounce back from the adverse condition. It consists of internal, external, and consideration aspects that influence both systems. There are thirteenth themes in PPFP systems. The sample of evidence of each theme is shown in Table .

Table 5. Protective and Promotive Factors and Process for Bidikmisi Students

The internal PPFP is consists of eight themes. A helpful mindset comprises beliefs that help students strive and bounce back from adverse conditions. It includes positive, optimism, growth, and a never-give-up mindset. Self-regulation is the students’ ability to manage their life, including emotion, time, impulse, and energy. The adaptive coping strategy is defined as the student’s capability to choose an appropriate way to solve a problem in their studies. Reflective thinking emerges in Phase 2 as the students’ ability to evaluate themselves, situations, and activities. The theme regarding “goal” emerges in both phases. It is named “clear goal and priority” because it includes what the students want to achieve and what most matters to them. Most Bidikmisi students set academic achievement as their top priority, serving as a compass in their studies. Flexibility is the students’ ability to distinguish between what they could change and act based on that judgment. Also, it includes their ability to notice a different side of people and adjust their actions based on it and find many ways to improve a situation. Taking action is the students’ ability to do what they think, even a small step or hate it. They have to do it for a better purpose. The last theme is reaching out, proactively finding support, and utilizing external resources and opportunities.

The external PPFP is consists of two themes. The first theme is social support. It covers help from the students’ parents and siblings, peers, and seniors on the campus. The second theme is role model which is referred to as a person that becomes a “benchmark” in daily attitudes and behavior for Bidikmisi students. This could be their siblings, parents, lecturer, or senior. The consideration factor of PPFP consists of three themes. Spirituality emerges from both phases as believing that something greater than oneself makes an order in life and striving to connect with the greater one. Family value includes the values passed from parents to their children. Finally, the ethnic value includes values from the students’ ancestors on their conduct as specific ethnic members.

3.5. Category 3: desired resilient outcome

The desired resilient outcome is about success in the Bidikmisi students’ eyes, not only in academic life but also in non-academic life and personal development. We conclude with four final themes that emerge from Phase 1 and Phase 2. Table shows the sample of evidence of each theme in desired resilience outcome.

Table 6. Desired Resilient Outcome in Bidikmisi Students

The first theme is the happiness of others. The happiness of others emerges in Phase 2, consisting of the desire to make their family and friends happy. Also, they desire to contribute to society and help junior students to adapt to university positively. The second theme is personal development which is the desire to become the best version of oneself. There are many forms towards a better version of themselves: (1) striving toward one’s goal, (2) acquiring the optimum skill, (3) getting better at relationships, and (4) getting better at managing life balance. The third theme is academic achievement. This theme is the most desired outcome for participants. It includes having a GPA above average and graduating on time or even faster. The final theme is non-academic life. It includes actively participating and learning from the organization and other non-academic activities.

3.6. Resilience process for Bidikmisi students

The final description of the resilience process was determined by deductive analysis based on Ungar’s Socio-Ecological Resilience Framework. From this process, we can have a description of the resilience process specifically for Bidikmisi students. There are seven risk exposures, nine internal and two external PPFP systems, three consideration aspects of PPFP, and four desired resilient outcomes (Figure ). The dynamic of the resilience process is explained in the discussion section.

Figure 1. The resilience process for Bidikmisi student based on socioecological frameword

Figure 1. The resilience process for Bidikmisi student based on socioecological frameword

4. Discussion

The resilience process in Bidikmisi students involves the dynamic between individuals and the social systems. These findings are in line with the socio-ecological definition of resilience which is the capacity to navigate and negotiate with “adverse situations” using personal and environmental resources (Ungar & Theron, Citation2020). Resilience in a socio-ecological framework emphasizes “resilience as process”. The mediating process and protective resources toward better-than-expected outcomes in the presence of adversity are the heart of resilience (Van Breda, Citation2018). The mediating processes include the individual and social levels of system. In this section, the interaction between individual and social systems is explained through the dynamic between risk exposure, PPFP, and desired resilient outcome. There are three different resilience processes based on the risk and desired resilient outcome.

The first resilience process involves personal traits, the most risk exposed to Bidikmisi students. Personality traits include anxiety, depression, burnout syndrome, and health-risk behavior in students (Hong & Paunonen, Citation2009; Matsudaira & Kitamura, Citation2006; Skodova & Lajciakova, Citation2013). Therefore, negative personal trait becomes an adverse condition for Bidikmisi students, reflected through low self-confidence, overthinking, insecurity, and pleasing others. These risks hinder them from the fulfillment of personal development which is one of their desired outcomes. When thinking reflectively, they usually start with a negative inner conversation about themselves (influenced by personal traits). The previous study referred to this negative inner conversation as negative automatic thoughts (Judd, Citation2016; Yu et al., Citation2020). However, resilient Bidikmisi students overcome this negative inner conversation because they have helpful mindsets that counter those negative thoughts. For instance, they practice positive conversation, optimism, and a growth mindset formed from spirituality (individual consideration) and family value (social consideration). When the individual system is not strong enough to counter them, they seek help and optimize external resources for their role model. In this light, the students ask for direct or role models ‘ prior advice regarding what they remember about their model’s actions. All of this process would help them bounce back from adversity and successfully reach the outcome

The adversity of Bidikmisi students is not only characterized by negative personality traits (as a risk factor) but also characterized by their family background. Most Bidikmisi students come from disadvantaged families which struggle to fulfill their daily needs. Some of them already lost their household. They have a responsibility to help sustain family life instead of studying in higher education. These conditions reduce family support for continuing education in university. Whereas, family support is one important factor related to students’ resilience (García-Crespo et al., Citation2021). Family conditions also distract them when they have to study. Resilient students overcome this adversity by reaching out to others. They seek help from high school teachers to discuss various alternatives that permit them to continue studying in higher education despite their limited financial condition. They also believe that education can help and prosper their hometown.

The second resilience process concerns how Bidikmisi students achieve academically and make other people happy. In this process, others include their parents, family, friends, and hometown people. Furthermore, most Bidikmisi students believe that a good academic record makes them happy and proud. They also believe that knowledge gained from university would help advance their hometown. Therefore, to actualize those beliefs, they need to hone self-regulation, which involves setting goals and selecting appropriate strategies. Additionally, they should maintain motivation, monitor, and evaluate progress until achieving personal goals (Ramdass & Zimmerman, Citation2011; Zimmerman, Citation2000). Resilient Bidikmisi students have clear priorities, adaptive coping strategies, and a “do-it/take action” attitude. These four factors become internal protective and promotive factors. Meanwhile, the students may also experience risks of failing because of social expectations. They are burdened by how parents, friends, lecturers, and other people perceive them. A previous study showed that high expectations toward the student affect their academic performance and cause depression (Ma et al., Citation2018; Wentzel et al., Citation2016). Furthermore, low physical endurance hinders them from performing academically by making them tire easily.

Participating actively in a non-academic context and developing self is the focus of the third resilience process. The resilient students have a strong desire to balance academic and non-academic life, learn new abilities and experiences, develop their positive characters, and make new friends by joining non-academic activities. However, some Bidikmisi students experience cultural shock while striving to achieve this desired outcome because they need time to observe what is common and uncommon. Additionally, they experience social exclusion because most come from the rural areas. The financial condition also obstructs them from joining an organization because they must prioritize daily needs over organization activities. Despite this risk exposure, the students have role models. Therefore, they reach out to the role models to discuss the best action in certain situations. The role models such as mother, father, older siblings, seniors in the university, mentors, and teachers help the students to gain resilience and health-promoting behavior (Southwick et al., Citation2006; Stone et al., Citation2020; Yancey et al., Citation2011). Moreover, flexibility helps them handle cultural issues and new organizational tasks. Flexibility could moderate resilience by reducing undesirable outcomes such as stress and depression (Lam & McBride-Chang, Citation2007).

This study also found different resilience levels among participants. The Bidikmisi students with higher resilience consistently manifest resilient behaviors in their life by relying on their internal protective and promotive factors (PPFP). Conversely, lower resilience level students manifest uncertain resilience process by depending only on external PPFP. This finding indicates the importance of internal resources in building resilience among Bidikmisi students compared to external resources. Therefore, this study recommends further comparative research between resilient and non-resilient Bidikmisi students to determine the magnitude of each factor in the resilience process. Unfortunately, generalization of the findings can not be made to higher education students directly because of the different and various levels of adversity.

There are several limitations that need to be addressed in this study. Firstly, choosing the time length between each phase needs to consider not only practical reasons but also theoretical reasons. We suggest doing a literature review to find how long it takes for resilience to manifest in an individual. Secondly, we recommend piloting for the interview protocol in order to ensure that participants understand the questions. Thirdly, we used percentage agreement among raters which may reveal unanticipated complexities. (O’Connor & Joffe, Citation2020). Thus, using statistical tests (e.g., Cohen’s Kappa, the Kuder-Richardson 20) and respondent/participant validation are recommended to increase the study’s credibility. Considering these limitations, the results only mirror the current participants. They cannot be applied to other Bidikmisi students in different cohorts and times.

This study found several themes that related to students’ immediate environments (i.e., family, peer, upperclassman, lecturer). This study also found how Bidikmisi students navigate their protective factors to buffer the risks. However, it lacks explanations about how the environments help the students to be resilient. The socio-ecological framework of resilience emphasizes the environmental aspects which highlight the quality of social and physical ecologies of the individual (Ungar & Liebenberg, Citation2011). Therefore, for further studies, we suggest investigating the characteristics of social and physical ecologies that are associated with resilience, both at the microsystem and mesosystem levels. For example, we can identify what challenges the lecturer can offer in order to improve Bidikmisi students’ reflective thinking. We can also explore what characteristics of peers make Bidikmisi students easier to reach out and ask for help.

5. Conclusion

Featuring the effects of Indonesian culture and higher education context, the study of Bidikmisi students’ resilience shows the peculiarity of the process. Bidikmisi students come from a family that struggles to fulfill daily needs; insisting they prioritize helping family over studying. They are also prone to chronic inferiority; constant comparison between their own capabilities and other regular students. However, despite those adversities, the resilient students demonstrate persistency toward their desired outcomes which are to become a success in academic and non-academic life, become helpful people, and develop their strengths (e.g., character strengths and ability strengths). A positive mindset is derived from spiritual/religious values, ethnic values, and family value becomes their promotive and protective factor to strive for. Social support especially from the Bidikmisi student community helps them to bounce back. The existence of role models helps them to learn self-regulation and adaptive coping strategy as Bidikmisi students. This typical resilience process serves as the base to develop a specific psychological resilience intervention program for student-at-risk in higher education. We also suggest exploring characteristics of microsystem (e.g., peer, lecturer, student association) and mesosystem (e.g., interaction with a lecturer, interaction with upper-class students) that can improve the resilience process in Bidikmisi students.

Availability of data and material

The data supporting this study are available from the corresponding author [MW] upon reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception, design, and writing manuscript. The concepts and design were arranged by Miryam Wedyaswari [MW], the literature searched by Miryam Wedyaswari [MW], Janice [J], and Aulia Hanafitri [AH]. Data were acquired by enumerators trained by [MW]. All authors contributed to data analysis, while the manuscript was prepared by [MW], edited by Witriani [W], and reviewed by [W]. The final manuscript was then read and approved by all authors.

Disclosure statement

The corresponding author confirms on behalf of all authors that no involvements raise the question of bias in the work reported or in the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated.

Additional information

Funding

This study was self-funded.

Notes on contributors

Miryam Wedyaswari

The authors are a member of the Center of Innovation and Psychological Studies in Universitas Padjadjaran. Miryam, Aulia, and Witriani are lecturers, while Janice is a student in the Faculty of Psychology. Miryam Wedyasawari joined as a lecturer in Educational Psychology Department. She started researching resilience in higher education students while pursuing her master’s thesis. She supervises students’ organizational and personal development activities. Janice Simanjuntak is a bachelor’s student in Psychology. Janice has been involved in educational volunteering activities and is a research assistant at Unpad. She is currently the Head of the Curriculum of Taman Ilmu (a student organization that focuses on education-related issues). Aulia Hanafitri has been a lecturer in the Social Psychology Department. Witriani is also a lecturer in Educational Psychology Department. Her research interests include factors relating to academic motivation and teaching and learning methods in higher education.

References

  • Afrila, D. (2011). Pengaruh Pengalokasian Beasiswa Bidikmisi, Lingkungan Teman Sebaya, dan Kebiasaan Belajar Terhadap Hasil Belajar Mahasiswa Bidikmisi Tahun Masuk 2011 di Universitas Negeri Padang. Jurnal Ilmiah Dikdaya, 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  • Ainii, A. Q. (2017). Why bidikmisi scholarship coming late? Kompasiana.
  • Amering, M., & Schmolke, M. (2009). Recovery in mental health: Reshaping scientific and clinical responsibilities. Wiley. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=Yg2XDwAAQBAJ
  • Arat, G., & Wong, P. W. C. (2019). Commentary on: How schools enhance the development of young people’s resilience, by Ungar, Connelly, Liebenberg, and Theron, 2017. Social Indicators Research, 143(1), 319–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1971-7
  • Arrixavier, A. A., & Wulanyani, N. M. S. (2020). The role of learning facilities and motivation toward learning achievement in Bidikmisi Students at P Universitas Udayana. Jurnal Psikologi Udayana, 7(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.24843/JPU.2020.v07.i01.p09
  • Ayed, N., Toner, S., & Priebe, S. (2019). Conceptualizing resilience in adult mental health literature: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 92(3), 299–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12185
  • Baskarada, S. (2014). Qualitative case studies guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 19(40), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1008
  • Bellanca, J. A. (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Solution Tree Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=aGYXBwAAQBAJ
  • Bidikmisi. (2020). Bidikmisi. Direktorat Pembelajaran Dan Kemahasiswaan Ditjen Dikti. https://bidikmisi.belmawa.ristekdikti.go.id/
  • Bidikmisiwp. (2019). Dreams that not just dreams. Berita Bidikmisi. https://dev.bidikmisi.info/berita/?author=1
  • Chee, W. (2019). “Lose at the starting line, win at the finishing line”: The narratives behind beating academic adversity. Social Indicators Research, 145(2), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1574-8
  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. In Muqarnas (3 ed., Vol. 8). Callifornia: Sage Publication, Inc. https://doi.org/10.2307/1523157
  • Formadiksiumrah (2021). Achievement of Bidikmisi Students in 2020. Instagram. Forum Mahasiswa Bidikmisi. https://www.instagram.com/p/CN9BgsEDuXa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
  • García-Crespo, F. J., Fernández-Alonso, R., Muñiz, J., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2021). Academic resilience in European countries: The role of teachers, families, and student profiles. PLOS ONE, 16(7), e0253409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253409
  • Grid, I. (2019). Cerita perjuangan andreas rony wijaya, anak petani alumni bidikmisi yang kini dapat tawaran beasiswa dari 5 universitas di taiwan.
  • Hong, R. Y., & Paunonen, S. V. (2009). Personality traits and health-risk behaviors in university students. European Journal of Personality, 23(August 2009), 675–696. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.736
  • Judd, M. W. (2016). The moderating effects of positive and negative automatic thoughts on the relationship between positive emotions and resilience. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1363. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1363
  • Kalisch, R., Müller, M. B., & Tüscher, O. (2015). A conceptual framework for the neurobiological study of resilience. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, e92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1400082X
  • Khasanah, U., & Herina. (2019). Buliding students’ character via digital literacy in 21 century education. Revolusi Industri 4.0, 2, 999–1015. https://jurnal.univpgri-palembang.ac.id/index.php/Prosidingpps/article/view/2662
  • Kustiasih, R., & Kurniawan, A. B. (2013). Bidikmisi telat, mahasiswa gali lubang tutup lubang. Kompas.Com. https://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2013/05/15/10234719/Bidikmisi.Telat.Mahasiswa.Gali.Lubang.Tutup.Lubang?page=all
  • Lam, C. B., & McBride-Chang, C. A. (2007). Resilience in young adulthood: The moderating influences of gender-related personality traits and coping flexibility. Sex Roles, 56(3–4), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9159-z
  • Lestari, R. (2018). Relation of failure syndrome student with self-regulated learning of Bidikmisi students in universitas sumatera utara (Skripsi). [Bachelor Thesis]. Repositori Institusi Universitas Sumatera Utara (RI-USU). http://repositori.usu.ac.id/handle/123456789/10355
  • Malang, F. M. B. U. N. (2021). Achievements of Bidikmisi students in Universitas Negeri Malang 2019. http://formadiksi.um.ac.id/data-prestasi-mahasiswa-bidikmisi-universitas-negeri-malang-2019/
  • Ma, Y., Siu, A., & Tse, W. S. (2018). The Role of High Parental Expectations in Adolescents’ Academic Performance and Depression in Hong Kong. Journal of Family Issues, 39(9), 2505–2522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18755194
  • Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227
  • Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2016). Resilience in Development: Progress and Transformation. Developmental Psychopathology, 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy406
  • Matsudaira, T., & Kitamura, T. (2006). Personality traits as risk factors of depression and anxiety among Japanese students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20215
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (An expanded sourcebook) ed.). Sage.
  • Mufidah, A. C. (2017). Relation between social support and resilience with sef-efficacy as mediator in Bidikmis students. Jurnal Sains Psikologi, 6(2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.17977/um023v6i22017p069
  • Musabiq, S. A., Assyahidah, L. N., Sari, A., Dewi, H. U. K., & Erdiaputri, W. A. (2018). Stress, achievement motivation, gratitude, and perceive social support: Analysis of optimism in Bidikmisi students. Mediapsi, 4(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.mps.2018.004.01.3
  • O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406919899220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
  • Onken, S. J., Craig, C. M., Ridgway, P., Ralph, R. O., & Cook, J. A. (2007). An analysis of the definitions and elements of recovery: A review of the literature. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 31(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.2975/31.1.2007.9.22
  • Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200202
  • Skodova, Z., & Lajciakova, P. (2013). The effect of personality traits and psychosocial training on burnout syndrome among healthcare students. Nurse Education Today, 33(11), 1311–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.023
  • Southwick, S. M., Morgan, C. A., Vythilingam, M., & Charney, D. (2006). Mentors enhance resilience in at-risk children and adolescents. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 26(4), 577–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690701310631
  • Stone, A. L., Nimmons, E. A., Salcido, R., & Schnarrs, P. (2020). “My meemaw is a cool ass person”: Family members as role models of resilience for sexual and gender diverse people of color. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 16(2), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2020.1724148
  • Tinggi, S. A.-H. T. (2020). Towards future change, the start of Formadiksi. https://stitalhikmah-tt.ac.id/read/81/bergerak-maju-menuju-perubahan-dari-formadiksi-dimulai
  • Tusaie, K., & Dyer, J. (2004). Resilience: A historical review of the construct. Holistic nursing practice, 18(1), 3–8; quiz 9–10; PMID: 14765686. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004650-200401000-00002
  • Ungar, M., Connelly, G., Liebenberg, L., & Theron, L. (2019). How schools enhance the development of young people’s resilience. Social Indicators Research, 145(2), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1728-8
  • Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2011). Assessing resilience across cultures using mixed methods: Construction of the child and youth resilience measure. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 126–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811400607
  • Ungar, M., & Theron, L. (2020). Resilience and mental health: How multisystemic processes contribute to positive outcomes. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 7(5), 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30434-1
  • Van Breda, A. D. (2018). A critical review of resilience theory and its relevance for social work. Social Work, 54(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.15270/54-1-611
  • van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
  • Wentzel, K. R., Russell, S., & Baker, S. (2016). Emotional support and expectations from parents, teachers, and peers predict adolescent competence at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000049
  • Wilkinson, C. (2012). Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory. Planning Theory, 11(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211426274
  • Windle, G. (2011). What is resilience? A review and concept analysis. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 21(2), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259810000420
  • Yancey, A. K., Grant, D., Kurosky, S., Kravitz-Wirtz, N., & Mistry, R. (2011). Role modeling, risk, and resilience in California adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.05.001
  • Yeung, W. J. J., & Li, H. (2019). Educational resilience among Asian children in challenging family environment. Social Indicators Research, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02143-7
  • Young, K. W. (2010). Spirituality and quality of life for Chinese people with severe mental illness. Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work, 29(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15426430903479213
  • Yu, M., Huang, L., Mao, J., Dna, G., & Luo, S. (2020). Childhood maltreatment, automatic negative thoughts, and resilience: The protective roles of culture and genes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520912582
  • Zahra, F. H., Nabilah, H. R., & Wedyaswari, M. (2021). The resilience of first year Bidikmisi students in Universitas Padjadjaran. Journal An-Nafs: Kajian Penelitian Psikologi, 6(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.33367/psi.v6i1.1448
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7