The Lit Review Series: Defining Purpose
#1: Defining “Purpose”: Precision and Practicality
Introducing the “Lit Review” Series
As we’ve been building Purpose Commons, we have spent a lot of time engaging with the research on purpose, working alongside the Purpose Science and Innovation Exchange at Cornell University (PSiX), trying to make sure the work is grounded in the literature, and trying to translate what we’re learning into something useful in the real world.
But there’s a difference between being familiar with the literature, and knowing it for real.
As we are being trusted to help carry and translate this work, that distinction matters. We’re excited to introduce the “Lit Review Series” that takes a deeper look at the research shaping how we view purpose.
We probably won’t ever be the ‘experts’ (that’s why we have our partners at PSiX) but we do owe it to ourselves and everyone who has made it to the Commons to understand the research more intimately. To wrestle with it, to sit with the tensions, question the assumptions, and build a level of clarity that allows us to represent the work with integrity so we might build purposeful conditions for the next generation.
This series is not about being perfect or having the “right” interpretation. To live by our values means to learn out loud. We want to share what we are reading and how we’re making sense of it. We want to talk about where we are confused and what we are questioning.
Our hope is that this becomes less of a one-way translation and more of a shared learning process. That those of you who are in the work with us will engage with it, push on it, and help sharpen our collective understanding.
The goal here isn’t just to “know the literature better.”
The goal is to get closer to understanding what it actually takes to build the conditions for purpose development in the real world.
Each post in this series will be anchored in specific pieces of literature that we’ll share transparently, so others can engage with the same work.
But our approach isn’t to treat research as separate from practice. It’s about understanding where it aligns with reality, where it falls short, and what it means for the systems we’re trying to change.
We’re actively holding two sources of knowledge at once: the academic literature, and what we’re learning in real time from youth, practitioners, and partners.
This month, we start with four pieces of literature that help us explore the foundational question: How is Purpose defined? And does it matter?
Lit Review #1: How is Purpose Defined?
There is no single shared definition. Do we need one?
One of the clearest takeaways, both from the literature and from our work in the field, is that there isn’t a universal definition of purpose.
Some describe it as a foundational life aim. Some say it must benefit others beyond the self. Some think of it as something big and world-changing. Others find it in everyday actions.
There are traces of all of these perspectives in the literature and the stories we hear in the field, but there isn’t a single definition that holds everything.
What does seem consistent is this: purpose is forward-looking and gives a sense of direction.
This raises an important question: How precise of a definition is required to take collective action?
Research suggests that adolescents are largely capable of defining purpose in ways that align with academic frameworks. They also tend to reflect similar ideas as the adults who have participated in similar studies.
So if young people are already operating with a functional understanding, what matters more for us: precision in definition, or practicality in application?
At the same time, what do we lose without a shared definition? What kind of definition gives people enough clarity to engage, without closing down the complexity of their lived experience? Do we have enough to start building usable pathways for purpose development given the level of clarity we have today?
This all suggests that we may not need perfect definitions to begin. But we may need one clear enough to recognize when purpose is already showing up. We might also need more containers for young people to engage with the question in the first place.
Meaning vs. purpose. A debate for research, or young people?
Another tension that shows up clearly in the literature is the distinction between meaning and purpose.
Researchers tend to treat them as separate constructs. A common framing is that meaning is about making sense of the past, while purpose is oriented toward the future. But when you listen to young people (and most adults) those lines blur.
People (and early literature) often talk and think about purpose and meaning interchangeably.
This makes us wonder: Does this distinction matter in practice? If so, how much?
Are we overemphasizing a conceptual difference that doesn’t meaningfully change how young people engage with their lives?
It seems reasonable to say that meaning and purpose are deeply connected. That your sense of where you’re going is deeply shaped by how you make sense of where you’ve been.
So maybe the more important question for systems change isn’t how we separate the two, but whether we’re creating space to reflect on both.
In other words, is the push for precision creating clarity? Or is it creating a barrier to access? Or is there something we need to better understand?
The issue isn’t developmental readiness.
One thing that feels clear across the literature (and from experience) is that youth are absolutely capable of engaging with purpose both as a concept and with their own relationship to it.
They can reflect on it. They can define it. They can wrestle with it. And from what we’ve seen, they want to.
The issue is whether we create the conditions for those conversations to happen.
Do young people have space to explore? Do the environments around them support that kind of reflection? Are they asked questions in meaningful ways by people they trust?
If they don’t, then it probably doesn’t matter how well purpose is defined.
Purpose and identity are deeply intertwined and neither is easy.
Another theme that shows up consistently is the connection between purpose and identity.
The literature suggests they are closely linked, maybe even inseparable. They clearly move together. But there are still questions about what comes first.
If purpose is tied to identity, then purpose development can’t be a “feel-good” exercise. It’s a developmental process. It requires exploration, uncertainty, and sometimes discomfort. It’s work.
But when we think about the systems young people move through (schools, programs, even families) we rarely design for that kind of process.
If we want to support purpose, we may need to take identity development much more seriously than we currently do.
Which makes us wonder if supporting purpose starts less with programs, and more with how often young people are given the space to explore who they are.
There are already plenty of people working to build spaces of identity alignment. We are sure there is a lot they will be able to teach us.
We don’t have a belief problem. We have an implementation problem.
Across all of the literature, one thing is clear: purpose matters.
It’s connected to agency, motivation, wellbeing, and a range of positive outcomes. This aligns with what we heard through the Purpose Jam and our design research: young people want space to develop it, and practitioners are looking for ways to support it.
So the issue isn’t whether people care about purpose. The issue is that we don’t know how to consistently build it into the systems young people navigate every day.
We don’t measure it. We don’t design for it intentionally. And we don’t always create environments that align with it.
OR maybe we just haven’t uncovered all the spaces purpose is being designed for because they are not explicitly saying ‘purpose’ or defining it in terms connected to our academic understanding of the concept.
Where might we be losing out on beautiful work as a result of narrow definitions? At the same time, where might we be misled without precision?
The highest impact may not come from trying to build entirely new systems, but to notice where purpose is already being cultivated, then strengthen those conditions intentionally.
Where this leaves us for now:
We are leaving this month with some clearer questions:
Do young people actually need us to define “purpose”?
How much does precision in language matter versus accessibility in practice?
If purpose is tied to identity, what happens in systems that limit identity exploration?
Are we overcomplicating purpose in research while under-supporting it in practice?
Where might purpose work already be happening but is overlooked because it’s being called something else?
Even small changes in how we structure time, conversation, and reflection might have the potential to begin to shift this more than we expect. This is a first step.
We are excited to be on this journey with you all. Let us know what you think. More to come soon.
Reference List: