"Yikes, this process is difficult!" That comment from one of the Center for Spiritual Development's advisors captures well the learning process we've been engaged in as we shape our framework for understanding spiritual development.

For the past year, we have been using a Web-based survey tool to develop among the center’s 118 advisors something of a consensus on core dynamics in spiritual development among children and adolescents. We have just begun sharing the "beta version" of a framework and the rationale behind it. And while we know that the approach will continue to be refined and reshaped, we also see this as a good time to share a bit more of the behind-the-scenes process as well as some of the conundrums that we have faced. Your comments can help us break through to new insights and perspectives.

We knew that our theory-building approach was a bit unorthodox. A more traditional approach might have studied existing theory and research, developed research instruments based on what we saw, conducted the research, then released our findings and the theory guiding them. However, though we studied existing literature and instruments, we feared that such an approach by itself would be too limiting, for a couple of reasons.

First, most of the existing research is slanted toward North American religious perspectives (primarily Christian), and most of it is focused on adults, not young people. So we were not convinced that a derivative of existing research and theory would help us reach a broader understanding of spiritual development in a global context.

Second, we know from a growing body of research that the odds of findings actually being used increase dramatically when the people affected (or people like them) are involved in shaping the theory and research. Our advisors were intentionally selected to represent a wide range of perspectives and disciplines, including social scientists, theologians, philosophers, and practitioners. (We also used findings from focus groups with young people in 13 countries to inform the process, thus bringing their perspectives to the endeavor.)

At the same time, we knew that engaging in a different, more interactive and inclusive process would take more time and be particularly complex, both philosophically and logistically. On the philosophical side, we have advisors from multiple disciplines, 19 countries, and several religious traditions (including advisors who are not religious). Furthermore, some advisors challenge the assumption that there are "universals" in human development, or they operate out of very different theories or worldviews. Still other advisors were uncomfortable with a broad approach that is not grounded in a particular religious tradition. Thus, each time we solicited input, we received a wide range of perspectives that often contradicted each other.

On the practical side, we were dealing with advisors on multiple continents and in multiple time zones with multiple other responsibilities. We were unable to convene them physically, which might have been most productive. So we needed a different way to get their perspectives, synthesize them, and check on whether we were internalizing their perspectives adequately--particularly given the large number of advisors we wanted to participate.

We ended up modifying a technique known as the Delphi Method, which is used to build consensus among experts around issues and ideas. Though the technique has significant shortcomings, it offered a useful starting point for our needs. Furthermore, we decided to use a Web-based survey interface to gain structured and relatively quick input that we could easily sort and analyze. And though a number of advisors were frustrated that we couldn't engage in in-person conversation, others appreciated the ability to participate in a structured process on their own time.

In the end, we were pleased with the level of input from advisors, the surprising level of consensus on many issues, and the resulting preliminary framework that has become integral to our ongoing work. We have a clear sense of direction on core processes of spiritual development and a sense of priorities within them. That level of agreement allows us now to test the framework through surveys with young people. Those surveys will, in turn, allow us to begin understanding some of the different pathways that young people take through the spiritual development journey, including whether and how they integrate an understanding of God or powers beyond themselves (as well as other variables) into their worldview and spiritual identities.

But the process has not been without bumps in the road. For example, in what we thought would be the final round of input, we proposed some summary statements about spiritual development--separate from the tasks etc. above--that didn't resonate with the advisors. The language we used, they said, was too generic, too vague, and had too many unarticulated assumptions to be useful or meaningful. So we will try again on summarizing, and continue to take the time and make the efforts necessary to build consensus in this complicated process.

We are pleased, though, that, despite the "messiness" and the disagreements in some areas, a broad consensus has been achieved on some parts of the definition, and a fuller one may, in fact, be within reach. The challenge throughout is finding an appropriate level of language that is not so vague that it becomes unrecognizable and not so specific that it becomes excluding or irrelevant to many. We will test our thinking more fully across the coming year, through a survey and through ongoing dialogue with advisors and others. (I’ll also write blogs about some of the specific conundrums that surfaced, hoping for insights from readers and colleagues.)

In earlier installments in this blog, I have highlighted the priority we at Search Institute place on building bridges and finding common ground in ways that benefit children, youth, and communities. The work of the past year has been an experiment in seeking some common ground across a wide range of people and perspectives. I invite you to seek opportunities to engage in dialogue (in person or virtually) with others outside your own world and worldview about things that matter. Yes, it will be complex. But it will also be very rewarding.