(Part 11 in a series)
Tucked away in an appendix is a brief statement that summarizes the general approach to research taken by the Reveal team in both Reveal and Follow Me. They write:
“This is ‘applied’ research rather than ‘pure’ research, meaning that its intent is to provide actionable insights for church leaders, not to create social science findings for academic journals” (p. 148).
I would say that they have it half right.
Let’s start with academic journals. Most academic researchers, who are usually college professors as well, publish their work in academic journals. These journals are usually published quarterly, and you find them pretty much only in university libraries—never a popular bookstore such as Barnes and Noble or Borders. The best known journals for the sociology of religion are the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Sociology of Religion, and Review of Religious Research. Never heard of these? You’re not alone, and that’s why I’m glad that the Reveal Team isn’t aiming to put their findings into these journals.
Most academic journal articles have little benefit for the church which is why pastors rarely, if ever, read them. The key question here, however, is why, and I would propose that academic journal articles pick (sometimes obscure) theoretical and empirical issues that have little to do with the day-to-day workings of the church. What makes academic research on religion mostly irrelevant for church leaders? It’s the topics chosen by researchers. On this count, the Reveal team gets high marks for picking topics that really matter for the church. What could be more fundamental than learning how people grow spiritually and how to promote this growth.
In contrast to academic research, Follow Me points to what it calls “actionable insights” as its goals for research—empirical information that church leaders can use to grow and prosper their ministry. Again, I applaud the Reveal Team for looking to be relevant, but the best “actionable insights” would be those rooted in the best research methods. A simple correlation drawn from a cross-sectional study is sufficiently ambiguous that it may be of relatively little value for the church. Put differently, I can imagine few empirical findings that would truly benefit the church that don’t also have a clear, defensible causal assumption, and the best way to demonstrate causality is to carefully use the most powerful research methods available. No causal understanding? No actionable insight.
Next: Breakthroughs?
3 comments:
Interesting...hadn't thought about why churches aren't involved with or use research on religion. Wouldn't the reason that most scholarly articles aren't helpful to churches be that most scholars aren't interested in furthering the church or its goals but rather are interested in studying religion from more of a naturalistic standpoint?
Brad,
I look forward to diving into all of these posts about Reveal when I am finished reading the book.
Here is one post I wrote today which gives a good example of academic sociological research.
Weekly U.S.A. Church Attendance: The Sociologists Weigh In
On Friday in class, Duke sociology professor Mark Chaves named the exact three journals you mentioned as the top three in sociology of research.
For more general research in sociology he noted:
- American Sociological Review
- American Journal of Sociology
- Social Forces
- American Review of Sociology
Andy Rowell
Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) Student
Duke Divinity School
Durham, North Carolina
Blog: Church Leadership Conversations
That's probably right, Jeff. Most the stuff in academic journals is not that helpful to the practitioner.
Andy, Thanks for the link to your post about church attendance. Mark Chaves is certainly the expert on that!
Post a Comment