It is an honor to join you and to offer these reflections on University Research in the age of Covid. I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity to hear so many outstanding presentations.
In my reflections, I will focus on two themes: first, a possibility emerging from the experience of these past two years for a focus on ever-more challenging problems; and second, on the importance of drawing upon resources that can support and strengthen our people who are taking on these challenges.
We can count on an extraordinary global infrastructure in support of understanding the dislocations we have discussed – a global research infrastructure. As Kathleen McCartney shared in her presentation, it is nothing short of “astonishing” how much we already know about the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial development of children and adolescents. And as we have learned from all other presentations – it is equally astonishing how much we have learned about other domains.
And this is an extraordinary infrastructure that continues to strengthen. The convergence of new forces – globalization, climate change, growing inequity, new technologies – has required the development of new approaches to research – new ways of organizing research, new structures. Jeffrey Sachs is responsible for the development of one such example – the Earth Institute at Columbia – and our colleagues at UNESCO & UNICEF have supported other types of approaches that push beyond traditional disciplines and seek to connect methods and approaches in new combinations. Over the past decade, the National Academy of Sciences has proposed the concept Convergence Science to capture this dynamic that we all know well.
We should have some confidence that universities will respond to the challenges of understanding exceptionally well. Universities will be part of this strengthening infrastructure, primarily because the university is built on the centrality of knowledge. That is the core of our identity and purpose.
Three elements constitute the university:
First, is formation, we provide a context for the formation of young people. That is, along with the knowledge that becomes transmitted through students’ coursework and faculty engagement, we value the importance that all students explore and develop the intellectual, moral, social, spiritual, and civic dimensions of their selves.
Second, is inquiry. We support the scholarship and research of our faculty. In essence, we are contributing to the discovery and construction of knowledge as well as establishing a home for epistemic communities that establish the conditions for truth.
Third, is the emphasis on common good, as universities we contribute to common good of the communities in which we participate. There is a good we can achieve together that we could never hope to achieve alone.
Inquiry – scholarship and research – is the work that holds these elements together and differentiates the university from other places where “formation” occurs and other institutions that contribute to the common good.
The work of inquiry has been on display throughout the pandemic – we have seen examples of this astonishing work, here, together, in the presentations of our colleagues.
The work of inquiry has, in these just past times, enabled an extraordinary explosion of knowledge, actions, treatments, insights – an awesome display of inquiry. Significantly, universities have been and now are at the forefront of the effort.
And while the work of inquiry focused on pandemic particulars is ongoing, it continues also into the work of how we understand what we are doing and what needs to be done.
Analyses, treatments, policies, have emerged from our universities – collaborating in public – with one another, with the private sector, with municipal, state, and the federal governments. The emphasis has been, by and large, on “following the science”, and this is all the work of inquiry.
And now I think we must ask: given what we have learned and are learning about inquiry during this pandemic – can it be applied elsewhere? As we move forward, can we apply our learning to so-called Wicked Problems?
How can we characterize “wicked problems?”
A term that captures a range of problems that, whether by definition, interpretation, inability to confront – are defined as “wicked”. Here’s how that appellation was originally described and displayed:
Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber – from the Abstract of their 1973 paper:
“The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail because of the nature of these problems…Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the indisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about ‘optimal solutions’ to these problems…Even worse, there are no solutions in the sense of definitive answers”.[1]
They identify ten characteristics of wicked problems:
- There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
- Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
- There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
- Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
- Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
- Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
- Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
- The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
- The social planner has no right to be wrong. (i.e., planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
Others have used different terms to describe this idea. Russell Ackoff, writing in 1974: “Every problem interacts with other problems and is therefore part of a set of interrelated problems, a system of problems…I choose to call such a system a mess”.[2]
Is this helpful? Can this characterization of “wicked problems” enrich our capacity to expand, enrich, deepen our work of inquiry? Does this concept help to explain why some of the problems we have discussed seem so intractable? Why are some of the issues we have discussed so intractable? Can this concept enrich our understanding of the nature of inquiry?
These are challenges that universities, in their inquiry roles, take on as a matter of course. What is “problematical” is examined as part of the work of the university. I believe some of what we have learned through these past twenty-four months in response to the pandemic has strengthened the capabilities and capacities of our universities to take on these ever-bigger problems.
Discernment
I wish to close with a reflection on those who do the work – those members of our university – our faculty, our scholars, graduate students, post-docs, increasingly undergraduates – those who engage in inquiry – those who will be taking on these ever more challenging problems. As we have strengthened our universities, are there steps we can take in support of our people?
A convening like this, held in this location, opens up the possibility of a discourse drawing upon more resources – spiritual and moral resources – that might be more challenging to explore in our more typical academic conferences. I offer these reflections from the oldest Catholic and Jesuit university in the United States and wish to share one element of a 500-year-old tradition that animates our community.
Early in the interview that perhaps more than any introduced to the world the way of proceeding of Pope Francis, Father Antonio Spadaro asked the Holy Father the following question: “What does it mean for a Jesuit to be elected pope? What element of Ignatian spirituality helps you live your ministry?”[3] Pope Francis responded with the word: “Discernment”.
He replies: “Discernment is one of the things that worked inside St. Ignatius. For him it is an instrument of struggle in order to know the Lord and follow him more closely”.[4]
St. Ignatius is the founder of the Jesuits. Discernment is a transformative practice outlined in the Spiritual Exercises – a guidebook he wrote for the practice of discernment. For Ignatius, we must pay attention to our interiority – with special attention to the feelings – to the affect – that we are experiencing – movements – within us. For Ignatius, the beginning of his insight came in convalescence from an injury suffered in battle. He was a courtier whose leg had been shattered when hit by a cannonball.
More than his leg, his entire world was shattered. His self-identity, one whose, in his words from his Autobiography, “chief delight” was “in the exercise of arms, with a great and vain desire to gain honor” was hard to sustain.[5] But not without trying. In convalescence, he asked for books that would feed this identity – requesting “tales of chivalry”. With none to be found he was limited to two sacred texts: “a life of Christ and a book of the lives of the saints…”.[6]
What emerges in the interiority of this young man is an experience that might have resonance with each of us: there were interior movements that brought him joy. And there were interior movements that brought sadness, a heaviness, even dread. He gave us words that describe these contrary interior movements – consolation and desolation. In his convalescence, when he reflected on reading sacred literature and allowing his imagination to flow: consolation. When he reflected on his life as a courtier – desolation.
For Ignatius, we are not to ignore or reject or run from these interior movements: we are to try to interpret them. What are they telling us? What could they mean? Where are they leading us? If they are leading us toward “consolation” than they can be trusted and we need to reflect with them. And if the contrary, they need to be resisted. What is this work of interpreting these feelings? This is discernment.
Ignatius encourages careful attention to our interiority – especially to the “affect” we experience.
One more term. The word is sentir – an Ignatian word that is difficult to define. Here is Father Brian O’Leary:
“Sentir is…a key concept for…Ignatius…it defies any efforts to force it into either an intellectual or an affective category; it successfully spans both. Hence the difficulty of translating it by any single word. Phrases like ‘to have a felt understanding’ of a truth, or ‘to have an experiential and affective knowledge’ of a person or a thing, are awkward; but they are often necessary circumlocutions to bring out the rich spiritual meaning of the original”.[7]
There is a powerful idea at work – that we can attain “felt knowledge”. Knowledge that we just know, in the deepest parts of our beings, is true. We have both our intellect and we have this practice – of discerning the affect that we have in each of our interiorities. Ignatius asks us to privilege the significance of our “inner lives”.
Colleges and universities are dedicated to the acquisition and dissemination, the discovery and construction, the interpretation and conservation of knowledge. Together, these knowledge-developing activities determine the orientation of the university.
Can we draw upon additional resources, like those offered by Ignatius – discernment, consolation, sentir – to assist us, to support who take on this work, as we build upon the work of these past twenty-four months and seek to tackle the most complex social problems?
Bibliography
Ackoff, Russell Lincoln. Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. New York: Wiley, 1974.
Francis. Interview with Pope Francis. Interview by Antonio Spadaro, S.J., September 21, 2013.
Ignatius, Joseph A. Munitiz, Philip Endean, and Ignatius. Personal Writings: Reminiscences, Spiritual Diary, Select Letters Including the Text of The Spiritual Exercises. Penguin Classics. London; New York: Penguin Books, 1996.
O’Leary, Brian. Pierre Favre and Discernment: The Discernment of Spirits in the Memoriale of Blessed Pierre Favre [2nd ed.]. Oxford: Way Books, 2006.
Rittel, Horst W.J., and Melvin M. Webber. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4, no. 2 (June 1973): 155-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
[1] Horst W.J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”, Policy Sciences 4, no. 2 (June 1973): 155, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
[2] Russell Lincoln Ackoff, Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems (New York: Wiley, 1974), 21.
[3] Francis, Interview with Pope Francis, interview by Antonio Spadaro, S.J., September 21, 2013.
[4] Francis.
[5] Ignatius et al., Personal Writings: Reminiscences, Spiritual Diary, Select Letters Including the Text of The Spiritual Exercises, Penguin Classics (London ; New York: Penguin Books, 1996), 1.
[6] Ignatius et al., 5.
[7] Brian O’Leary, Pierre Favre and Discernment: The Discernment of Spirits in the Memoriale of Blessed Pierre Favre [2nd ed.] (Oxford: Way Books, 2006), 86.