Lumina Foundation Grant Announcement

We are delighted to share that The Good Project has received funding from Lumina Foundation to launch a research study entitled “Good Work Value Alignment:  Measuring the Non-Economic Value of Postsecondary Credentials Across Sectors,” which will begin this fall. This 15-month project will explore how students and professionals in high-need fields, including healthcare, IT/technology, and construction/architecture, define the value of post-high school credentials beyond purely economic measures. Building on nearly three decades of “Good Work” research, the study will elevate how meaning, purpose, social contribution, and identity shape learners’ and workers’ views of their education and careers. 

Through surveys, focus groups, and interviews with a nationally representative sample, the research team will gather insights from today’s diverse student populations and professionals to inform more inclusive approaches to higher education and workforce development. One of the project’s key outcomes will be the development of a prototype tool to measure the non-economic value of credentials—capturing dimensions such as ethical responsibility, civic engagement, and community contribution. We look forward to sharing updates as the study unfolds and to contributing knowledge that helps institutions and employers better support students in preparing not only for available work, but for meaningful work.  We are deeply grateful to Lumina Foundation for their generous support and partnership in advancing this work.

Hoisted by Her Own Petard?!

by Howard Gardner and Ellen Winner

---

This piece was originally published on Sunday, July 20, 2025 as a letter in the opinion section of The Cambridge Day. In their letter, Howard and Ellen chronicle their ill-fated but amusing tangle with the City of Cambridge Department of Transportation after receiving two unexpected parking tickets. They describe their hearing with an austere Cambridge clerk—and that meeting’s surprise-ending. Ultimately, Howard and Ellen step back to locate their experience in a conversation about two concepts coming out of The Good Project, neighborly morality and the ethics of roles.

---

So, we received two notices from the Cambridge Massachusetts Transportation Service, indicating that we owed $60 (2 x $30) for wrongly parking in spaces reserved for Cambridge residents.

Though we could certainly afford to pay the fine, we decided to contest the tickets. In part, this was on principle—we did not feel that we had broken any rule. Also in part, because we wanted to go to a certain neighborhood in Cambridge anyway and so we could “kill two birds with one stone.”

The announced date for the hearing arrived. We were set to drive to the East Cambridge courthouse. Checking on the time and address, however, we learned that the hearing would actually occur online—so there was no need to get dressed up for our encounter with the local Justice System and we could save some time. We arrived online a bit early. A message on the screen welcomed us by name, noted that we were a bit early, and bade us to be patient. Which we were.

Clerk Annie Lynch (not her real name, but a typical Cantabrigian name) arrived a bit late. Neither she nor we knew how to adjust the various parameters that governed the chat, but eventually we connected and introduced ourselves.

By agreement with Ellen, Howard would be the spokesperson. He explained the reason for the plea:

• We have lived in Cambridge all of our adult lives—64 and 60 years respectively. Throughout, we have been good law-abiding citizens.

• We have had cars throughout that period and never had been summoned and penalized in this way.

• As soon as residents of Cambridge began to receive annual parking stickers (some time ago), we always displayed the sticker in the proper place—and so we had the right to park throughout Cambridge.

• Over the decades we have had our own parking spaces at home, so we rarely needed to park on the street.

• This past winter, we unexpectedly lost our parking space. While searching for a new one, we parked on the street in spaces reserved for residents like us.

• To our surprise and annoyance, we received notification that we had violated the parking rules on April 9th and April 10th of 2025…and therefore owed $60. If we had been travelling for some weeks, we could easily have accumulated hundreds of dollars of fines!

• The reason for the alleged parking violation: A few years ago, Cambridge had changed the location on the car where the sticker should be displayed. And so, while we had indeed displayed the sticker, it was no longer in the proper place, and accordingly, we were fined $30 for each violation.

We were not expecting that the violations would be forgiven, let alone both of them. After all, as Clerk Lynch told us, the new place to display the sticker has been in effect for some years. No mercy, even for good, law-abiding citizens!

The surprise ending: As the hearing wound down, she said, “So we will send you the violation notice to your home address: 70 Larchwood Drive.”

“Aha!” I said. “We have not lived there for over five years. Your books are completely out of date. And yet you are accusing us, and making us pay, for exactly the sin that the city of Cambridge has committed.”

To tweak the old phrase, “Clerk Annie Lynch was hoisted by her own petard.” But we still owe Cambridge $60. And we won’t send her this essay! Stepping back: Drawing on our own research on “Good Work,” here’s another way to think of our exchange with Annie Lynch. It pits “neighborly morality” vs. “the ethics of roles.”

To the extent that we have been good citizens of Cambridge for decades, and simply displayed the decal in the wrong spot, Lynch could have treated us as neighbors and let us off the hook. On the other hand, she has the role of the “professional” and perhaps needs to follow the procedures—indeed, the ethics—of her profession. But of course, if she had no latitude, then we should not have been allowed to have a hearing and to contest the decision. It was an unnecessary ritual and waste of everyone’s time.

The fact that the City of Cambridge had been so inattentive to our own address would have given her an opening to cancel or reduce our fine, our sentence. As a professional, she could have said, “Well, in view of your impeccable record, and the discretion given me as an officer of the court, I am going to reduce of cancel your penalty. You might consider donating the saved funds to a worthy cause.” But she did not seize the moment—and perhaps she never does…in which case, it’s not clear that she deserves the label of a “professional” clerk. “Rubber stamp” would be a less flattering, but perhaps more accurate descriptor.

Good Work and Good Citizenship: Do They Presuppose a Democratic Society?

© Howard Gardner 2025, reproduced from howardgardner.com

Even when one seeks to be broad—if not universal—it’s challenging to transcend one’s customary concerns and ordinary points of reference. 

I learned this lesson dramatically when over forty years ago, I put forth the theory of multiple intelligences (often abbreviated as MI theory). Extensive research in a number of disciplines had convinced me of what seemed to be a seemingly reasonable conclusion: The psychometric view of intelligence—whatever its empirical virtues and convenience—is far too narrow. It fails to encompass the range of human abilities, gifts, and talents that have been valued all over the globe across the millennia. 

Yet, even decades later, the bulk of the psychometric community still embraces the concept of a single intelligence—captured accurately by a single instrument—and steadfastly refuses to countenance alternative formulations about human cognition and intellectual breadth. This is due, I think, to the convenience of the IQ test, the continuing widespread use of the singular term “intelligence”, and the vested interests of test-makers and test-users. (Perhaps if I had created seven or eight tests, they would now constitute the consensual-conventional wisdom.)

Thirty years ago, my colleagues and I embarked on a comparable journey. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, William Damon, and I sought to ascertain the key components of good work. We asked: What does it mean to carry out work—over the course of a lifetime—that would be held in high esteem by knowledgeable contemporaries? Through substantial empirical research as well as considerable reflection and interchange with knowledgeable colleagues, we eventually identified the three principal components of Good Work:

It’s carried out with high competence—It is Excellent

It is deeply involving and meaningful for the practitioner—It is Engaging

It seeks to discern and live up to the highest moral standards—It is Ethical

We’ve captured this formulation visually via the triple helix of the Three Es.

While our research efforts focused primarily on the realm of work, my colleagues and I have proposed that the role of good citizen can be similarly delineated. What does it mean to be a good citizen of one’s community—say, locally and nationally? Meritorious good citizens are cognizant of the major rules and regulations of their community, they care enough to become and remain involved in the relevant political processes, and to complete the picture, they strive to carry out their roles in an ethical manner.

Components of Good Citizenship

As I write, in the spring of 2025, all of this seems far less clear than it was in 2005, when my colleagues and I first proposed this scheme, or in 2015, when we began to contemplate what it means to be a good citizen.

To be Specific

My colleagues and I blithely assumed that workers and citizens would be living in a reasonably democratic society. For the purposes of our research, we focused primarily on the United States. But we could easily have had in mind workers and citizens of Western Europe, and many other regions of the world—from Canada to Japan to Costa Rica.

Not, to be sure, that these societies would have concurred about the precise characteristics of a good worker or a good citizen—far from it. The ideal lawyer or barrister is not the same in the United States, England, or France—let alone Japan or Indonesia. Nor, for that matter, are the governments of these three societies interchangeable—in several ways, Australia conceives of citizenship differently from Germany or Mexico. But in broadest brush strokes, it’s assumed across these societies that the life of the worker is governed principally by the codes of that profession and it’s not unduly influenced by the current features and instantiations of executive, judicial, or legislative branches.

By the same token, whatever the differences in the legal codes with respect to voting, taxation, and other publicly known (and legally revisable) processes—it’s assumed that civic virtues (and vices) can be delineated and observed—and that their realization or their violation can be recognized, rewarded, and/or sanctioned.

Historical exercise

Mao Zedong posters at celebration of the Communist revolution (1949) / AP

If I’d been asked about what it meant to be a good citizen or a good worker in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China (in the height—or depth—of the Cultural Revolution), I would have been stymied! And coming out of my cerebral fog, I would have had to admit that I had stumbled into a “category error”. How could one be a good doctor, if one were enjoined not to treat—or even ordered to torture or murder—a Jew in Nazi Germany? How could one be a good journalist in Maoist China, when all kinds of topics and postures were strictly off limits? Or to shift to the civic realm, what does it mean to vote when the elections are fixed, or to follow the law when it changes irregularly and capriciously, and the decision to punish occurs ex cathedra—not after proper adjudication by independent authorities.

Virtually impossible even to conceptualize! Under such circumstances, it involves a huge stretch even contemplating Good Work or Good Citizenship. Fortunately, at the time of this writing in April 2025, we do not quite face such a quagmire in the United States or in most other developed societies. 

And yet! At this hour, the Federal Government of the United States, as well as national governments in countries like Hungary or Argentina, are questioning long-held assumptions—and even widespread consensus—about what it means to carry out Good Work or Good Citizenship. As citizens of such nations, we are being naïve or even derelict if we simply assume that our long-standing assumptions about work and civic participation will necessarily prevail and endure.

Daniel, Richard, and Jamie Susskind on AI discussion panel / WJR

Ironically, this issue first entered my consciousness a decade ago, when I encountered the writings of members of the remarkable Susskind family in Britain. Daniel, Richard, and Jamie Susskind all foresaw a time when many decisions that had long been made via deliberation among human beings would increasingly be executed—with seeming authority—by computational systems. And while these three scholars were reasonably confident that the computational systems would preserve the fundamental values of pre-computational times, I was much less confident that would be the case. (See my blog on the future of the professions, linked here.) Now some years later, Jamie Susskind himself has issued a warning published in the Financial Times about a society in which major decisions about human endeavors have been effectively handed over to General Intelligence Computational systems.

As I write, the threat to the Three Es of Good Work is patent. It’s perhaps most evident in the practice of journalism. At the height of the hegemony of American journalism—in the wake of the Sullivan decision by the Supreme Court (1964)—mainstream journalists were given considerable leeway in what they wrote about, whom they wrote about, and how they wrote about these matters. Today, however, the status of professional journalists is being seriously challenged by numerous pseudo-journalistic outlets that do not follow (if they are even aware of) the principal values of mainstream journalism and by governmental officials who seem determined to censor and even prosecute practitioners whose writings and reporting they happen to find objectionable.

Nor are journalists alone. The queue of vulnerable professionals grows steadily. Lawyers or law firms who take on unpopular causes are being threatened with massive lawsuits. Judges who rule against the governing party are being threatened with proceedings of impeachment. In some states, doctors who play a role in abortion or in sex-change operations can be charged with a crime, and professors who treat topics that are sensitive or take positions that go against the prevailing “conventional wisdom”—whether it be “pro” or “anti”-DEI—are subject to punitive measures and may even lose their jobs. Not to mention the threats against students, particularly if they are not citizens of the United States, or against educational institutions, whose functioning depends upon their tax-exempt status and the protection of their endowment funds.

The concept—and the reality—of worker-as-professional, as well as the concept and the reality of person-as-citizen are both hard-earned victories. We must acknowledge that those victories are never permanent and ought never simply to be assumed or presumed. Those of us who believe in and cherish these forms of “the good” must continue to support them, to sustain them, and to speak out when they appear to be vulnerable, in jeopardy, or even abandoned altogether. 

This essay confirms my commitment to do so.

REFERENCES

Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (Ed.). (2010). Good work: The theory in practice. Basic Books.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Susskind, J. (2022). The digital republic: On freedom and democracy in the 21st century (First Pegasus Books cloth ed.). Pegasus Books.

Expanding Our Circles of Care: The late Pope’s definition of ordo amoris and the “Rings of Responsibility”

Expanding Our Circles of Care
The late Pope’s definition of ordo amoris and the “Rings of Responsibility”
April 29, 2025
Shelby Clark 

In a February letter to US bishops, the late Pope Francis wrote: "Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating ... on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

This idea of loving humanity as a rippling effect is familiar to those of us at The Good Project: It appears that, in response to new American immigration policies, Pope Francis called out our “Rings of Responsibility” framework. 

Rings of Responsibility: A bullseye made of concentric circles labeled “self” in the center, followed by “others” on the next circle, followed by “community” on the next circle, “profession” on the next circle, and “wider world” on the outermost circle.

The Rings of Responsibility asks individuals to consider: To whom or what are you responsible? In our research we’ve found that some people feel responsible to themselves—their own ideals and values. Others feel responsible for their professions, while others feel responsible for their families and communities. Others might look even wider than this, and talk about their responsibility to their nation or the global world at large. When thinking about our 3Es framework and the “E” of ethics, we’ve asked people to think about responsibility:

• What is your responsibility to yourself, and beyond yourself?

• How do you think about each of these rings?

• Where do you place most of your responsibilities?

A Synchronous, Conceptual Tool

Pope Francis emphasized a Christian love that is inclusive and open to all, noting, “Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity.” 

He continued, “In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation.”

While we agree, we would also argue that the Rings of Responsibility is a conceptual tool that allows people to be aware of multiple aims: It asks you to consider your own self, your values, your ideals and to be pushing yourself to think beyond yourself towards your broader community, society, and the wider world, ideally at the same time. 

We know from our research that this is harder for some than others. 

Going “Glocal” 

Adolescence is a time of egocentrism and individual identity development. For most early adolescents, this is a time to be thinking more about the self, one’s own values, ideals, and personality. In fact, famed developmental psychologist Erik Erikson argued that, generally, adolescents don’t begin to think about wider social concerns until later adolescence (Flanagan, 2013), and we have seen this in our own research as well. For these students, we can push them to think about the outer ring of responsibility, but it might be harder for them. Just exposing these students to the outer rings of responsibility can be an eye opening experience and a push for them to begin considering broader communities when taking actions. 

On the other hand, we’ve also seen through our work with students focused on social responsibility projects, that the more adolescents think about themselves as part of a wider global community, the more they do think about responsibilities beyond themselves. 

As part of the Global Citizens Initiative, approximately thirty students from around the world join together each summer to design “Glocal” projects—social entrepreneurship projects that are focused on tackling global issues (poverty, discrimination, the environment) within their local environments. The students speak to how this experience opens their minds, helps them empathize more, and encourages them to gain new perspectives. 

Our research shows that, in addition, students evolve during their fellowship experience from being focused on the inner rings of responsibility more towards a broader swath of the Rings of Responsibility. 

Some Takeaways and Lingering Questions 

• Yes, perhaps it is okay to love oneself, but shouldn't we also think beyond ourselves and our responsibilities to the wider world? 

• How can we gain those broader perspectives? What will help us feel in “fraternity” with others? 

• What are our shared responsibilities in encouraging the growth of these broader perspectives?

• What are the consequences of not doing so?

• How do other religions and cultures speak to the ideas of the rings of responsibility and ordo amoris?

• All rings of responsibility might not be appropriate for all ages.