I think you’re right, this isn’t necessarily a “meta-analysis” or “systematic review” by academic standards. (I’ll update the description.)
“I think if you were to frame this differently and draw out a little more why we should care about wellbeing, you’d get more punch.”
What kind of framing might you have preferred?
While I was sitting on this document for over 2 years now, I went back and forth on what I wanted to accomplish with it. I’ve decided that I don’t necessarily want it to “pack a punch” in the sense of being persuasive about anything at all. I just wanted it to be an unbiased historical overview/outline of these theories, as a reference/resource. It doesn’t really read like an article, and I decided to be ok with that. It’s much more like a Wikipedia outline, and that’s what I was going for.
If the reader doesn’t care about well-being, then I’m very surprised they chose to open this link 😅
I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. (I do plan to do that kind of stuff in another post that can make references to this resource though!)
Also thanks for bringing up the other major concepts in positive psychology. While I think you’re right that those ideas are valuable context and were important to the field, I chose to exclude them in favor of only focusing on theories of well-being that established a multidimensional framework and an accompanying measurement. (Flow, grit, broaden and build,… These ideas fell outside the scope. Plus this document is too huge already 😅 eh?)
Thanks hornbill!
I think you’re right, this isn’t necessarily a “meta-analysis” or “systematic review” by academic standards. (I’ll update the description.)
What kind of framing might you have preferred?
While I was sitting on this document for over 2 years now, I went back and forth on what I wanted to accomplish with it. I’ve decided that I don’t necessarily want it to “pack a punch” in the sense of being persuasive about anything at all. I just wanted it to be an unbiased historical overview/outline of these theories, as a reference/resource. It doesn’t really read like an article, and I decided to be ok with that. It’s much more like a Wikipedia outline, and that’s what I was going for.
If the reader doesn’t care about well-being, then I’m very surprised they chose to open this link 😅
I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. (I do plan to do that kind of stuff in another post that can make references to this resource though!)
Also thanks for bringing up the other major concepts in positive psychology. While I think you’re right that those ideas are valuable context and were important to the field, I chose to exclude them in favor of only focusing on theories of well-being that established a multidimensional framework and an accompanying measurement. (Flow, grit, broaden and build,… These ideas fell outside the scope. Plus this document is too huge already 😅 eh?)
But seriously, thank you for this comment 🙂