Updating our Social Impact Buckets: Mechanisms of Change

Updating our Social Impact Buckets: Mechanisms of Change

Lynn Barendsen & Shelby Clark 

February, 2026

Last year, we shared our “Four Buckets of Changemaking” framework with students from around the world at the GCI Summit. The conversation was engaged, thoughtful, and — as is often the case when students really lean into it — somewhat critical. 

Students weren’t pushing back on the idea of changemaking. They were pushing back on the labels. One title in particular - “Crafting a New Culture”- generated consistent confusion. 

Across groups, students raised essentially the same point: Aren’t all of these about creating culture change in some way?

The students were exactly right. Changemaking, essentially, is all about changing culture in different ways. However, their confusion came from the titles of our original buckets: 

• Ripples Into Reform

• Change Through Charity

• Rooting for a Reset

• Crafting a New Culture

I admit, I was maybe being a bit whimsical when I created these first names. I wanted them to have alliteration so that they were easy to remember, rather than focusing more on their deep meaning. Testing them out at the Summit was the first “dry run” of them in practice with adolescents, and it was important to see how they failed. Conceptually, the distinctions worked. However, students struggled to differentiate the buckets in practice. 

They argued: 

• Policy reform changes culture. 

• Philanthropy can change culture. 

• Social entrepreneurship can change culture. 

Similarly, nearly every pathway to impact produces ripple effects. From a student perspective, the categories began to feel overlapping rather than distinct. But, these distinctions matter.

We originally came up with these buckets as the result of our “Investigating the Impacts of Educational Experiences” study, which ran from 2017-2022. In that research, we completed over 700 interviews with staff, students, and faculty at international secondary schools focused changemaking across the globe. In all these interviews, we asked “What does it mean to make a difference?” or “How do you make a difference?” The most prevalent answers included:

• creating a cascade or ripple effect by spreading one’s values (21% of comments);

• creating small or incremental changes (20% of comments);

• using relationships and kindness/humanity to further change (19% of comments);

• raising awareness of an issue (18% of comments); and

• other (18% of comments).

In particular, we specifically asked about types of actions in our surveys with students and alumni. You can see the types of changemaking activities they reported here: 

It was through the clustering of these various activities, along with the changemaking literature discussed in our previous blog What Does it Mean to Make a Difference? that we arrived on our initial four social impact buckets. 

Now, in revisiting the framework, we’ve shifted away from these more whimsical, metaphorical titles and toward something more functional: mechanisms of change. That is, these revised buckets focus on the ways in which change operates. We’ll review them one by one here. 

1. Spark Change

Mechanism: Influence

Spark Change involves influencing how people think, interpret, or respond.

Examples:

1. Conversations

2. Raising awareness

3. Role-modeling

4. Challenging assumptions

5. Kindness & inclusion

6. Symbolic acts

Key Clarifier: Sparking Change shapes understanding — it does not transfer resources.

2. Support Change

Mechanism: Provision

Support Change involves directly providing resources.

Examples:

1. Donating money

2. Providing goods

3. Volunteering time

4. Mutual aid

5. Fundraising

6. Offering services

Key Clarifier: Time counts as tangible because it functions as a transferred resource.

3. Build Change

Mechanism: Creation

Build Change introduces something new.

Examples:

1. Programs

2. Organizations

3. Social enterprises

4. Research initiatives

5. Products or tools

6. New models

Key Clarifier: Build Change adds something that did not previously exist.

4. Transform Change

Mechanism: Systems Redesign

Transform Change alters structures.

Examples:

1. Policy reform

2. Institutional change

3. Coalitions

4. Legal change

5. Governance shifts

Key Clarifier: Transform Change reshapes systems.

Hopefully, in this new system, students have clearer decision rules and simpler classification questions as they go about thinking about what type of change they want to make in the world. 

Do they want to influence understanding? → Spark

Do they want to give their resources or time?  → Support

Do they want to create something new? → Build

Do they want to change systems or structures?  → Transform

This is not to suggest that these buckets operate in isolation. Creating something new often requires both resources and shifts in understanding, and efforts to transform systems typically involve elements of influence, provision, and creation. The purpose of the framework is simply to help students (and others) think more clearly about the primary mechanism they are relying on to make change happen.

Your Changemaking Quiz: Which Changemaking Mechanism Feels Most Natural to You?

For each question, choose the response that feels most like your instinctive reaction.

Try not to overthink — go with what genuinely feels natural.

1. When you encounter a problem, your first instinct is to

A. Talk about it with others

B. Help someone immediately

C. Come up with a solution

D. Ask why the system allows it

2. Impact feels most meaningful when you:

A. Shift perspectives

B. Provide tangible help

C. Create something new

D. Change structures or rules

3. You are most energized by:

A. Dialogue & ideas

B. Service & contribution

C. Innovation & design

D. Reform & systems thinking

4. When something feels unfair, you tend to:

A. Challenge people’s assumptions

B. Support those affected

C. Design alternatives

D. Advocate for structural change

5. You believe change happens primarily through:

A. Influence

B. Resources

C. Creation

D. Redesign

6. In group projects, you often find yourself:

A. Framing the conversation

B. Taking care of practical needs

C. Generating ideas

D. Questioning underlying systems

7.  If you had unlimited resources, you would rather:

A. Run campaigns / raise awareness

B. Fund or support people directly

C. Launch initiatives

D. Change policies or institutions

8. Which feels most satisfying?

A. Changing how people think

B. Helping someone immediately

C. Building something new

D. Fixing root causes

9. When you see a gap or problem, you think:

A. “People need to understand this better.”

B. “Someone needs help right now.”

C. “Something new needs to exist.”

D. “The system needs to change.”

10. You are most drawn to activities that involve:

A. Communication / storytelling

B. Helping / assisting / serving

C. Designing / creating / inventing

D. Analyzing / reforming / restructuring

11.  When you imagine making a difference, you picture yourself:

A. Influencing people

B. Supporting others

C. Creating solutions

D. Transforming systems

12.  Which frustration sounds most like you?

A. “Why don’t people see this?”

B. “Why isn’t anyone helping?”

C. “Why hasn’t someone built this?”

D. “Why does the system work this way?”

13.  Which strength feels most central to you?

A. Persuasion / communication

B. Generosity / responsiveness

C. Creativity / initiative

D. Critical thinking / systems thinking

14.  If a friend wanted advice on creating impact, you’d most likely suggest:

A. Start conversations

B. Help directly

C. Build something

D. Push for reform

15. Which type of impact story resonates most with you?

A. Someone shifting public attitudes

B. Someone helping others directly

C. Someone launching something new

D. Someone changing laws or systems

Your Results: 

Mostly As → Spark Change Orientation

You gravitate toward influencing understanding, norms, and perception.

Mostly Bs → Support Change Orientation

You focus on tangible contribution and direct assistance.

Mostly Cs → Build Change Orientation

You lean toward designing and creating new solutions.

Mostly Ds → Transform Change Orientation

You are drawn to structural change and root causes.

Remember, no bucket is better; no orientation is superior. Sustainable change requires all four mechanisms. The purpose of this framework is not to sort people, but to help students think more precisely about mechanisms and strategies.

A Note on the Earlier Framework

Our earlier blog, What Does it Mean to Make a Difference: Considering Four Frameworks, and quiz remain useful for reflection. This update simply reflects that frameworks should evolve with evidence and feedback. 

Henry Luce Foundation Grant Announcement

The Good Project Receives Grant from the Henry Luce Foundation to Advance Research on Intellectual Risk-Taking in Computer Science Education

The Good Project is pleased to announce grant support from the Henry Luce Foundation for a five-month mixed-methods pilot study examining intellectual risk-taking (IRT) in undergraduate computer science (CS) classrooms, with particular attention to the experiences of women in the field. The study will develop and test a preliminary survey instrument designed to measure behaviors such as asking clarifying questions, acknowledging confusion, and proposing new ideas despite uncertainty—behaviors that support learning yet may be discouraged in high-pressure academic environments. Working in partnership with 2 higher education institutions, the research team will conduct faculty focus groups, cognitive interviews with undergraduate women, and a pilot survey of approximately 200 students across CS and comparison liberal arts disciplines.

The pilot is designed to produce initial evidence on how intellectual risk-taking varies across gender and academic context and will inform the refinement of a formal IRT-CS measurement instrument. Findings will also support immediate applications in faculty development, curricular design, and classroom climate improvement. A potential second phase of research would pursue broader validation across additional institutions, STEM fields, and student populations, alongside psychometric testing and expanded analysis of how instructional practices, peer norms, and disciplinary culture shape students’ willingness to take intellectual risks. This work contributes to ongoing efforts to advance equity and belonging in STEM education and to develop tools that support inclusive, innovative learning environments. The Good Project extends its deep appreciation to the Henry Luce Foundation for its support of this research.

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.