Good Work is essentially a report on the results of a qualitative
research project that was designed to uncover factors that promote
and impede good work among professionals today. The data for the
study was acquired through in-depth interviews with leading practitioners
in the fields of genetics and journalism. These individuals were
asked questions focused around identifying their professional
goals, principal obstacles that threaten the attainment of those
goals, and strategies for coping with those obstacles.

The book is divided into three sections. The first part provides
a historical and conceptual introduction to the project. The second
part examines of the results of the study that deal with genetics,
discussing in detail how geneticists responded to the survey questions.
The third part explores journalism in the same manner, followed
by suggestions for restoring good work in journalism, in genetics,
and in the wider world. Each of the second and third parts begins
with a historical analysis of the profession under investigation
and its place in society.

A central motivation behind the project was the authors’ combined
sense that the ultra-individualistic forces that currently pervade
Western society are slowly but surely eating away at the value-based
roots of the professions that comprise and sustain it. The power
of market forces, combined with an unchecked desire for personal
gain has, in recent years, created problems for a variety of professions.
In the case of journalism, the authors observe, the financial
pressures imposed by publicly held media conglomerates are competing
head to head with core journalistic values, such as truth telling.
Since, in a democratic society, the free press derives its’ raison
d’etre directly from the value of truth telling, the failure
of journalists to tell the truth ultimately undermines society’s
trust in the institution. Hence, the authors argue, journalists
turn away from truth telling at the peril of their profession.

In essence, the authors question the ability of an ultra-individualistic
ethos to guide us to a life worth living. They seek instead for
a way to permit timeless values to reassert themselves. If professions
are to flourish, it is argued, individual practitioners must take
seriously the their societal responsibility. Each field, as it
were, has a mission that justifies its existence. In general terms,
the further one strays from this mission the more one is likely
to damage not only one’s personal reputation, but also society’s
faith in that profession to carry out its mission. To help combat
individualistic impulses the authors suggest that professionals
ask themselves three basic questions: 1) Why should my society
entrust me with power and privilege? 2) Which workers realize
the calling best? 3) How do I feel about myself when I look in
the mirror? In the end, therefore, the authors suggest that one
be reflective and appeal to one’s sense of goodness and rightness
in order to correct the course.

Here a question arises. If an ultra-individualistic ego sits in
judgment will not judgment be bent by self-interest? In other
words, if the nature of one being reflective has already been
corrupted by an individualistic ethos, can his or her judgment
be trusted? This kind of question is not adequately addressed
in the book. Education, they suggest, is key. First, it is the
job of education to forge, or in some way inculcate, a good moral
character. Second, it is the job of education to teach the young
to think. This, of course, is not new message. In fact, this division
of the task of education can be traced to Plato’s Meno.

To conclude, Good Work provides for an interesting and
enjoyable read. It provides insight into the realms of genetics
and journalism, and it also provides one with some conceptual
tools with which to analyze one’s professional life. The central
questions that it addresses are timely and important, and the
advice is sound. The really fundamental questions concerning how
to develop an ethos that can guide us to a life worth living are,
however, only raised, not answered. In fact, I recommend, reading
the Meno after Good Work, since it picks up the thread
where the authors leave off.



© Michael Kurak

Michael Kurak’s area of
specialization is Philosophy of Mind, broadly construed to include
a number of related areas reflecting an interdisciplinary interest
in philosophy, psychology, and religion. His research concerns
the nature of mind and the way the mind works. His current research
project compares certain canonical Buddhist accounts of how a
moment of mind develops with those of Kant and Cognitive Neuroscience.
He lives in Ontario, Canada.

Categories: General, Ethics

Tags: Educational Psychology