Fostering Hope in the Service of Human Flourishing: Exploring New Directions

Goal

Hope, defined as "a combination of the desire for an outcome and the belief that the outcome is possible but not certain" (Martin, 2013, 4) is a foundational human phenomenon, which has been found to have a positive impact on longevity, health, and human flourishing. Furthermore, it increases innovation, creativity, productivity, leadership, and entrepreneurship (Pleeging & Burger, 2020). While important insights in hope have been developed in the psychological sciences, (1) it is unclear how hope can be fostered in a sustainable way (i.e. not resulting in false hope), while at the same time (2) neuroscientific, anthropological, sociological, economic and religious understandings of hope are limited.
Accordingly, this research idea considers how to develop new knowledge on hope as well as tools and interventions to foster hope in the service of human flourishing, especially for vulnerable people. We propose a research endeavor to improve understanding of the concept of hope (Discover), to design hope interventions, in order to examine how hope can be fostered (Develop), and consequently to find out what works for whom under which circumstances (Launch). In order to design successful interventions, we must significantly expand our understanding of hope by taking an interdisciplinary and intercultural approach.

Opportunity

Research on hope interventions is in its infancy, as is research on hope as a socio-cultural and neuroscientific phenomenon. Examining hope through the lens of neuroscience on the one hand, and cultural anthropology, sociology, development economics and religious studies on the other hand, can bring structurally new, interdisciplinary insight in its workings. Likewise, developing tools and interventions to foster hope can considerably benefit vulnerable individuals and communities (specifically: poor people in developing countries, children in deprived neighborhoods, migrants, the long-term unemployed, and elderly people). Hope is also important at the societal level because it promotes better citizenship, among other things.

Roadblocks

Significant effort is needed to broaden research into hope; there are two roadblocks in particular. First, hope research is currently mainly conducted within psychology. Although there is increased interest in the topic of hope from other disciplines, such as neuroscience, cultural anthropology, sociology, development economics and religious studies, the hope-research in these fields is still in its infancy. Second, there is a need not just for a multidisciplinary approach, but for truly integrated, interdisciplinary research, so that insights can be shared, tested, and further developed and good hope interventions can be developed which serve to promote human flourishing.

Breakthroughs Needed

Breakthroughs are needed in three areas. First, various disciplines need to come together to develop a better understanding of the different workings of hope in different cultures, with a view both to understanding hope better and to being able to develop context-specific interventions that can help to foster hope. For this, a breakthrough is necessary in interdisciplinary and intercultural understanding of 'hope'. Second, there is a need for significant success in the neuroscientific research into the phenomenon and workings of hope; positive associations need to be established between neural activity and experiences of hope – preferably studied during hope interventions. Third, it is important to thoroughly consider the cultural and religious contexts in the development of sustainable hope interventions, and to take into account specific traits of targeted groups, so as to find out what works for whom under which circumstances. Specific interventions often do not provide a solution for everyone; sensitivity to specific contexts is often as important as the content of the interventions. We propose a focus on hope interventions for the most vulnerable: poor people in developing countries, children in deprived neighborhoods, migrants, the long-term unemployed, and elderly people.

Key Indicators of Success

At the end of 3 years: Establishment of an annual interdisciplinary conference and PhD school, as indicators of a worldwide research network. Successful neuroscientific testing of three hope interventions.
At the end of 5 years: Development of living labs, which test new hope interventions, drawing on cultural anthropology, sociology, development economics and religious studies. We know how to foster hope in a sustainable way and know what works under which circumstances.
At the end of 10 years: Successful upscaling of applicable hope interventions (tailored to different contexts) and integration of teaching modules on hope in education programs in various countries.

Additional Information

This project seeks to significantly expand the current research of hope, in a way that is truly interdisciplinary. This is a crucial yet difficult task, as most hope research tends to be conducted within the confines of different individual disciplines, resulting in an incomplete understanding of hope. This is problematic, since it is crucial to understand hope as a variegated phenomenon, the study of which requires disciplines to work together.
Furthermore, hope is a socio-culturally, as well as a religiously variegated phenomenon; different dimensions of hope are stressed in different cultures and religions. It is worthwhile to further investigate these differences, both in order to understand hope better, as well as to be able to build better context-specific interventions. In addition, to design successful interventions, we have to significantly develop our understanding of how hope works by looking at the neuroscientific functioning of 'hope', and then to project how hope interventions might work in general, as well as for specific groups of people.
We submit this idea jointly, as a collaboration between the Erasmus Happiness Economics Research Organisation, of the Erasmus University Rotterdam (the Netherlands), led by Dr. Martijn Burger, and the Institute of Leadership and Social Ethics, a research institute of the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven (Belgium), led by Dr. Steven C. van den Heuvel; together, we have researched hope since 2016, through a series of projects funded by the Goldschmeding Foundation (see https://www.thehopeproject.nl/en/home/). In the context of these projects, we developed the Hope Barometer, a seven-dimensional instrument of measuring hope, combining existing hope scales. This deliberate interdisciplinary effort at measuring hope has given us new insights into the workings of hope. For example, we were able to corroborate earlier research that pointed to the positive correlation between levels of hope and social capital, and between hope and subjective well-being. We also found that people who are more hopeful are more likely to exhibit sustainable behavior, and that hope can be an important incentive for behavior.
Selecting from our extensive network, we list the following five potential collaborators:
- Prof. Dr. Anthony Scioli, psychologist (Keene State College, USA)
- Prof. Dr. Tor D. Wager, neuroscientist (Dartmouth College, USA)
- Prof. Dr. Carol Graham, economist (University of Maryland, USA)
- Prof. Dr. Hirokazu Miyazaki, cultural anthropologist (Cornell, USA)
- Dr. Nauja Kleist, sociologist (Danish Institute for International Studies, Denmark)
References:
- Martin, Adrienne. 2013. How we Hope: A Moral Psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Kleist, Nauja, and Dorte Thorsen, eds. 2017. Hope and Uncertainty in Contemporary African Migration. Abingdon: Routledge.
- Miyazaki, Hirokazu. 2004. The Method of Hope: Anthropology, Philosophy, and Fijian Knowledge. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Pleeging, Emma, and Martijn Burger. 2020. "Hope in Economics." In Steven C. van den Heuvel, ed., Historical and Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Hope, 165–178. Cham: Springer Open.
- Gottschalk, L. A., J. Fronczek and M. S. Buchsbaum. 1993. "The Cerebral Neurobiology of Hope and Hopelessness." Psychiatry 56, no. 3 (August): 270–81.