The National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good

Educating for the Public Goodthe process is about social stratification,” she stated. “It’s very contradictory to comingtogether as a community to serve the public good.” And it is counter-political in the sensethat it stands on the side of those who have the least power. “It puts us in opposition tothose with privilege,” she said. “If we take all this seriously, we’re talking about somethingthat is counter-cultural, counter-structural, and counter-political, which makes it almostimpossible for a college or university president to stand up and say, ‘We’re going to do thissystemically.’”<strong>The</strong> point was well-taken. Still, many felt that there must be some way to align individualand institutional efforts with a broader movement for change in the academy. Besides, theysaid, the phrase “systems thinking” suggests a false dichotomy between individual andcollective effort — they are two aspects of the same process. In a well-timed intervention,William Reckmyer, a systems theorist and professor of anthropology at San José StateUniversity, explained that one of the essential characteristics of systems is that they areself-organizing. “If you look at the way the universe has evolved,” he said, “you see thatfrom the sub-atomic level to the natural level it has come about not through some granddesign where everything was put in place, but rather by lots of entrepreneurial activitiesand lots of different species developing different niches.” <strong>The</strong> metaphor is a good one, henoted, because it suggests that individual efforts — no matter how differentiated — cancreate system-wide change when they are guided by a common impulse. “If it’s totallyidiosyncratic, we’re in trouble. If it’s at the other extreme,“How do we work togetherin a much smarterfashion, so that it’s notjust an assemblage ofindividuals who havealtruistic wishes to do theright thing?”— Joseph AguerrebereDeputy Director, Ford Foundationwhere everybody is doing exactly the same thing, we’re alsoin trouble. <strong>The</strong> key is to encourage as much self-organizationas possible, but make sure that there is some commondirection, a common framework, and some common values.”Another recurring theme revolved around the need for amore compelling articulation of the problem at the heart ofthe movement, one that resonates with academics and nonacademicsalike. According to Frank Gilliam, Vice Chancellorfor Community Partnerships at UCLA, those who share apassion for this work need to frame the movement in a waythat the public can understand and support. In a speech overlunch, he presented an overview of strategic frame analysis, an emerging field of studyaimed at examining how unquestioned assumptions and ways of looking at the world shapethe public’s understanding of policy issues. <strong>The</strong> research shows that people make sense ofnew information largely on the basis of pre-established interpretive frameworks, he noted.<strong>The</strong>se frames are like mental shortcuts that save people the trouble of repeatedly figuringthings out anew. But frames are usually resistant to change and can lock people into setways of understanding public issues. As Gilliam put it, “if the facts don’t fit the frame,23