M 2.1 theories & methods: adaptation of research design

1. M 2.1 theories & methods: adaptation of research design Adapting the Interpretive Approach to the Needs of the REDCo Project Bob Jackson St. Petersburg September 2007 Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit

2. Introducing the Approach • The interpretive approach was used as ‘the main theoretical stimulus’ in the REDCo project proposal • The Granada presentation also took this line – no-one expected to ‘adopt’ the approach • Use of its key concepts (representation, interpretation, reflexivity) creatively • The project proposal saw the interpretive approach as having potential for facilitating • development of theoryand methodfor field research and for • development of pedagogies for teaching about religions in ways that would give attention to issues of dialogue and conflict

3. Representation Seeing religions flexibly • Getting away from views of religions as having parallel structures and a common essence • Recognising diversity within religious traditions • Finding ways of representing individuals in their religious and cultural contexts (groups and traditions) that avoided stereotyping

4. Interpretation • Being aware of and making use of one’s current concepts and understandings • Comparing and contrasting the researcher’s/learner’s concepts and those of people being studied • Sensitivity (researcher/student) as a necessary condition, with empathy possible once the terms and symbols of the other’s discourse have been grasped

5. Reflexivity • the relationship between the experience of researchers/students and the experience of those whose way of life they are attempting to interpret • researchers/learners are encouraged to review their understanding of their own way of life in the light of their studies/encounters (edification) • researchers/learners are helped to make a constructive critique of the material studied at a distance • researchers/learners are involved in reviewing their methods of research/study

6. Edification • Being edified does not imply adopting the beliefs of those being studied/those in dialogue • Being edified implies recognition of the similarities and differences between people • Being edified presupposes a positive attitude towards difference and diversity • seeing encounter with different persons/beliefs as potentially enriching for all • seeing individual identity as being developed through meeting ‘the other’

7. Adapting the Interpretive Approach to the REDCo Project • The approach expressed as questions to be reviewed as research and pedagogical development proceeds • The questions apply equally to: • the research process (theory and method) • the development of pedagogical approaches • Each group of questions corresponds to one of the three key concepts of the approach

8. Representation As researchers & developers of pedagogies: • How well are we portraying the way of life of those we are studying so we avoid misrepresentation and stereotyping? • Are we presenting ‘religions’ in too monolithic a way? • Are we giving sufficient attention to diversity within religions? • Are we considering whether individuals might be drawing on a wider range of spiritual or ethical resources than are reflected in traditional portrayals of religions?

9. Representation As researchers & developers of pedagogies: • Are we showing awareness that individuals might be combining elements from a religion seen in traditional terms with values and assumptions derived from a more post-modern outlook? • How far are we aware of the perceived relationship (or lack of relationship) of individuals studied to background religious and cultural traditions?

10. Interpretation As researchers & developers of pedagogies: • How far are we giving attention to the religious language/concepts/symbols used by those whom we are studying/representing? • How well are we ‘translating’ the other person’s concepts and ideas (or comparing the other person’s language/concepts with our own nearest equivalent language/concepts) so we have a clear understanding?

11. Interpretation As researchers & developers of pedagogies: • How far are we able to empathise with the experience of others after we have grasped their language/concepts/symbols? • Have we considered the relationship of individuals to groups to which they belong (eg sub-tradition, sect, denomination, movement, caste, ethnic group) and of these groups to their background religious and cultural traditions?

12. Reflexivity As researchers • How far are we aware of the impact of our own cultural background/values and beliefs/gender/research role etc. on the research process or development of pedagogical ideas? • How far are we relating the data of our research to our own current understandings of difference? • How far are we giving attention to the evaluation of our research methods?

13. Reflexivity In relation to pedagogy • How far are we enabling students to reflect on their own assumptions/presuppositions/prejudices in relation to studying those with different religious/cultural beliefs/practices? • How far are we giving attention to issues of enabling students to relate material studied to their own ideas and values? • How far are we giving attention to issues of motivation in relation to reflexivity? • How far have we enabled students to make a careful, sensitive and distanced critique of new ideas studied?

14. Reflexivity: from personal to social • Some systems (eg France, USA) are wary of methods relating material studied to students’ own beliefs, assumptions & developing identities • An alternative is linking TaRB to citizenship education, emphasising the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in a pluralistic democracy, not on the sharing of personal views • ‘Teaching about diverse religious and secular worldviews and ways of life becomes a venue for helping students understand their rights to religious liberty or freedom of conscience (&) their responsibility to protect those same rights for their fellow citizens’ (Grelle 2006)

15. Reflexivity and different national systems of education • Specific reasons why the different aspects of reflexivity (edification & sensitive, distanced criticism) are desirable/acceptable/not acceptable • History of church & state/public & private • Different ‘cultural’ views of the role of the teacher/styles of teaching • Different ‘cultural’/‘religious’ views of childhood, the autonomy of children etc • Other reasons??