Reflections on Change

“Whoever reviews the state of his own mind from the dawn of manhood to its decline, considers what he pursued or dreaded, slighted or esteemed, at different periods of his age, will have no reason to imagine such changes of sentiment peculiar to any station or character. Every man, however careless and inattentive, has conviction forced upon him: the lectures of time obtrude themselves upon the most unwilling or dissipated auditor; and, by comparing our past with our present thoughts, we perceive that we have changed our minds, though perhaps we cannot discover when the alteration happened, or by what cause it was produced.”
Samuel Johnson: Rambler #196 (February 1, 1752).

        As I have mused in recent months on the swift pace of change in the nation, at the university and within the Institute, I have thought often of the great lexicographer and essayist Samuel Johnson. Johnson commented on two essential elements of change in the quotation above.  Each represents a signal quality of the phenomenon while also highlighting a deeper ongoing debate within philosophy concerning how humankind experiences the world that has long also been central to the social sciences. Johnson captured this controversy by first observing that our sense of perspective and ultimately our views of reality are dynamically, if partially, shaped by forces external to us. Those may take the character of interactions with friends, professional colleagues or family members; result from interaction with social or mass media; reading or reflection on film, theater or television productions or via countless other means. Some of those external factors may assume the character of unforeseen forces as well, such as when one loses a position to a firm’s mismanagement, experiences the loss of a loved one or the end of a personal or professional relationship, or otherwise finds one’s situation or perspective shaped in significant ways by elements beyond one’s control. Even so, as Johnson also noted, whether understood as individuals, organizations, nations or cultures, human beings can always determine how they will react to exogenous forces or events. More, it is not always immediately clear when or indeed, why, our conceptions of our world or at least of a major share of its elements have shifted in our perception; they just do, and, hopefully, we move forward thereafter. In short, we cope with change in part willy nilly by being required to adapt to its vagaries. But those forces are neither uniform nor total and so how we react, that is our own behaviors and perceptions in response, also matter, and perhaps profoundly, if nonetheless variably, to outcomes.

        One may apply this truism at multiple scales. For the Institute, the exogenous forces perennially at play include the university’s evolving role in American culture and society, its leaders’ choices concerning how to react to those dynamics, and our own decisions regarding how to pursue our vision and mission within those strictures. In short, while we confront an evolving tableau, we also always possess a modicum of discretion concerning how we wish to address it. For example, in the last few years, the Institute has moved from one college to another at Virginia Tech and its supervisory/reporting relationship has also changed significantly. The first decision was ultimately taken by the university’s provost, while the second was the province of our current college dean. Each of these changes is material to our daily activities and future, and we have adjusted to each without significant difficulty. Likewise, as a research organization deeply engaged with communities as an integral part of our work, IPG’s daily efforts are strongly shaped by Virginia Tech’s priorities, including its Global Distinction initiative aimed at achieving broad recognition as a land grant institution with a focus on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs). Neither of those can be attained without increasing sponsored research expenditures and ensuring vigorous publication streams and strong and active graduate, especially Ph.D., programs and placements, and assiduous work in communities in the United States and abroad. As it happens, with its current roster of 39 research faculty, staff and graduate students in three locations and their work in public health, workforce development and capacity building, democratic social change and international development as well as refugee and immigrant rights and integration, foster care systems and more, in the U.S. and abroad, the Institute is neatly placed to address these institutional aims, especially the university’s focus on the UNSDGs.

        Our current staffing level represents significant growth and arises from the addition of five faculty and staff members in Richmond and two in Blacksburg alongside our existing faculty and staff, and a complement of 10 affiliated doctoral and master’s degree candidates. More, we have a new director for our six-member Family Research Unit in Fairfax, following the retirement of the long-serving leader of that group. Our new colleague is bringing a fresh lens to our roles there. Meanwhile, our four Non-resident Research faculty, two of whom are also physically located abroad, bring us an international focus and vitality. Our two Senior Fellows, each expert in community engaged research and work, help us practice and reflect on that vital dimension of our efforts.

        Our affiliated graduate students continue to lead our Community Change Collaborative, which hosts faculty and professional guests from Virginia and universities across the United States and beyond interested in elements key to understanding the dynamics of democratic social change. Most recently, the group has hosted leading scholars on trust, imagination and power as part of an ongoing Institute podcast series, “Social Science for the Public Good.” Those conversations have attracted researchers from Harvard, Yale and other leading universities and garnered praise from those guests for their high level of thoughtfulness. CCC is also involved with the Community Change Journal, which continues to offer graduate students interested in social dynamics opportunities to learn about the publication process and to publish their work as well.

        This onslaught of change has led to several challenges now confronting us as we move ahead. I treat several of those very briefly here, not to argue we have solved them, but perhaps to contend, as Johnson suggested, that we will be better off honestly to work with one another to address these self-consciously as best we can rather than to allow them to wash over us without reflection. That said, it would be immodest to argue that we can or soon will “control” the many forces affecting the Institute or even always be able to “know” when we have shifted our individual and collective views and course as we address them. We will nonetheless try to be as observant of our aims and our environment as we can be and to harness our resources in ways that help to realize our collective aims for governance, the needs of our faculty and staff, and those too, of the college and university, for excellence.

        Perhaps our greatest challenge as we have grown is to manage our complexities to ensure common macro-level aspirations while at the same time ensuring time and space for our faculty and staff to choose their specific interests and direction and be free to wonder and imagine possibilities, vital dimensions for personal and intellectual growth and for discovery and research of any sort. We must likewise address the inevitable strains that attend operating in different geographic locations and across multiple policy domains and in frequently unlike ways. Finally, however, and perhaps most importantly and withal, we need to ensure trust and effective and candid conversation across our organization so each of us can benefit from the interests and capacities of our colleagues and we each can mentor one another as we move forward.

        There can be no gainsaying the challenges confronting the academy, democracy and the intellectual life in our society as I write. It is surely possible we could lose all or a major share of the freedom and possibility we now enjoy and treasure. But while we have it, my hope is the Institute can serve as one space, however imperfect, in which openness and the quest for justice and equality can be practiced daily by a dedicated cadre of faculty, staff and students devoted to democratic ideals and possibility. As we strive to do so, we would do well to bear Samuel Johnson’s wise counsel ever in mind.