Is Discussing Controversial Issues in RE a Magic Bullet to Promote Social Cohesion? Mapping Opportunities and Challenges Based on Previous Research
In: Journal of Empirical TheologySearch for other papers by Jan-Hendrik Herbst in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
In the public debate, it is often argued that RE is important because it promotes social cohesion. In the academic debate, however, this position is controversial because, firstly, this goal is associated with a politicization of RE and, secondly, empirical evidence on whether or how RE causes this effect seems to be lacking. In this article, I argue first that cohesion is an adequate subgoal of RE, assuming a social rather than a state-political understanding of cohesion. Second, I refer to international studies on teaching controversial issues (CIs), which show that students can learn participation, tolerance, and common good orientation through high-quality exploration of CIs in class. However, due to methodological difficulties and negative side effects, the discussion of CIs in RE cannot be assumed to be a magic bullet for achieving cohesion. For instance, uncertainties and ambiguities accompany forms of dissent in the classroom, which may lead to authoritarian dispositions and political intolerance. In addition, there are particular challenges for inclusive and especially denominational RE in terms of teachers, issues, students, and external factors.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
All Party Parliamentary Group [APPG] (2014). RE and Good Community Relations. Retrieved February 11, 2023 from https://www.religiouseducationcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/APPG_report_RE_and_good_community_re.pdf.
-
Anker, T. & Lippe, M. von der (2018). Controversial Issues in Religious Education: How Teachers Deal with Terrorism in their Teaching. In F. Schweitzer & R. Boschki (Eds.), Researching Religious Education: Classroom Processes and Outcomes (pp. 131–144). Münster: Waxmann.
-
Avery, P. G., Levy, S. A. & Simmons, A. M. (2014). “Secondary students and the deliberation of public issues” in Political Science & Politics, 47(4), 849–854.
-
Barnes, L. P. (2020). “Crisis, Controversy and the Future of Religious Education”. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
-
Bautista, N., Misco, T. & Quaye, S. J. (2018). “Early Childhood Open-Mindedness: An Investigation into Preservice Teachers’ Capacity to Address Controversial Issues” in Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 154–168.
-
Beck, T. A. (2013). “Identity, discourse, and safety in a high school discussion of same‐sex marriage” in Theory & Research in Social Education, 41(1), 1–32.
-
Chater. M & Erricker C. (2013). “Does religious education have a future? Pedagogical and policy prospects”. Abington, Oxon: Routledge.
-
Chater, M. (2022). “Why RE’s Radical Reform Could Fail: The Politics of Epistemology and the Economics of Producer Capture” in Journal of Beliefs and Values, 43(3), 239–256.
-
Commission on Religious Education (CORE) (2017). “Religious Education for all”. Retrieved February 11, 2022 from https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Commission-on-Religious-Education-Interim-Report-2017.pdf.
-
Cooling, T. (2012). “What is a controversial issue? Implications for the treatment of religious beliefs in education” in Journal of Beliefs & Values, 33(2), 169–181.
-
Copur, A. & Demirel, M. (2016). “Turkish Social Studies Teachers’ Thoughts About the Teaching of Controversial Issues” in Journal of Social Science Education, 15(2), 80–95.
-
Dickes, P., & Valentova, M. (2012). “Construction, validation and application of the measurement of social cohesion in 47 European countries and regions” in Social Indicators Research, 113(3), 827–846.
-
Douglas, E., Bouma, G., Barton, G. et al. (2020). “Religious Diversity in Australia: Rethinking Social Cohesion” in Religions, 11, 1–15.
-
Drerup, J. (2021). Kontroverse Themen im Unterricht. Konstruktiv streiten lernen. Ditzingen: Reclam.
-
Erlich-Ron, R. & Gindi, S. (2018). “Are civics teachers different from teachers of other disciplines in their handling of controversial issues?” in Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 14(2), 1–13
-
Ersoy, A. F. (2010). “Social studies teacher candidates’ views on the controversial issues incorporated into their courses in Turkey” in Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 323–334.
-
Flensner, K. (2020). “Teaching Controversial Issues in Diverse Religious Education Classrooms” in Religions, 11, 1–25.
-
Francis, L., ap Siôn, T., McKenna, U. & Penny, G. (2017). “Does Religious Education as an examination subject work to promote community cohesion? An empirical enquiry among 14- to 15-year-old adolescents in England and Wales” in British Journal of Religious Education, 39(3), 303–316.
-
Franken, L. & Levrau, F. (2020). “Rejecting ‘Controversial’ Issues in Education: A Case Study of Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Schools in Belgium” in Religions, 11(4), 1–16.
-
Gearon, L. (2013). “The counter terrorist classroom: Religion, education, and security” in Religious Education, 108, 129–147.
-
Gearon, L. (2015a). “Learning to Teach Citizenship in the Secondary School. A Companion to School Experience” (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
-
Gearon, L. (2015b). “Education, security and intelligence studies” in British Journal of Educational Studies, 63(3), 263–279.
-
Gindi, S., Sagee, R. & Gilat, I. (2021). “Who wants a political classroom? Attitudes toward teaching controversial political issues in school” in Journal of Social Science Education, 20(2), 130–150.
-
Grimmitt, M. (2010). Introduction: Living in an era of globalized and politicized religion: What is to be Religion Education’s response? In M. Grimmitt (Ed.), Religious Education and Social Community Cohesion (pp. 8–25). Great Wakering: McCrimmon.
-
Hand, M. & Levinson, R. (2012). “Discussing controversial issues in the classroom” in Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(6), 615–629.
-
Hand, M. (2008). “What should we teach as controversial? A defense of the epistemic criterion” in Educational Theory, 58(2), 213–228.
-
Herbst, J.-H. & Menne, A. (2022). “‚Konfliktstoff Kopftuch‘? Möglichkeiten einer Reflexion populistischer Identitätspolitik im Religionsunterricht” in K. Pohl & M. Höffer-Mehlmer (Eds.), Brennpunkt Populismus. 15 Antworten aus Fachdidaktik und Bildungswissenschaft (pp. 105–122). Schwalbach am Taunus: Wochenschau.
-
Herbst, J.-H. (2022). “Kontroverse Themen im Religionsunterricht. Konzeptionelle Grundlagen, empirische Ergebnisse und zukünftige Forschungsperspektiven” in Theo-Web, 21(2), 352–369.
-
Hess, D. & McAvoy, P. (2015). The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education. New York & London: Routledge.
-
Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York: Routledge.
-
Ho, L., McAvoy, P., Hess, D. et al. (2017). Teaching and learning about controversial issues and topics in the social studies: A review of the research. In M. McGlinn & C. Mason Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Social Studies Research (pp. 321–335). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
-
Hughes, J. (2011). “Are separate schools divisive? A case study from Northern Ireland” in British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 829–850.
-
Iversen, L. L. (2020). “Controversial Issues and the Rhetoric of Common Values” in Religions, 11, 1–17.
-
Jackson, R. & McKenna, U. (2016). “The ‘Young People’s Attitudes to Religious Diversity’ project in the context of Warwick Religions and Education” in E. Arweck (Eds.), Young People’s Attitudes to Religious Diversity (pp. 3–18). London: Routledge.
-
Jackson, R. (2014). “Religion, Education, Dialogue and Conflict: Perspectives on Religious Education”. Abington, Oxon: Routledge.
-
Janmaat, J. G. (2011). “Social cohesion as a real-life phenomenon: Assessing the explanatory power of the universalist and particularist perspectives” in Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 61–83.
-
Kauppi, V. -M. & Drerup, J. (2021). “Discussion and inquiry: A Deweyan perspective on teaching controversial issues” in Theory and Research in Education, 19(3), 213–234.
-
Kello, K. (2016). “Sensitive and Controversial Issues in the Classroom: Teaching History in a Divided Society” in Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(1), 35–53.
-
Kus, Z. & Öztürk, D. (2019). “Social Studies Teachers’ Opinions and Practices Regarding Teaching Controversial Issues” in Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(8), 15–37.
-
Lindström, N. & Sullivan, K. P. (2021). “Wayfinding Through Disrupting Controversies in the Religious Education Classroom: Teachers’ Views” in Education in the North, 28(1), 68–81.
-
Maguire, A. (2022). “Supporting beginning religious education teachers in approaching controversial issues in the classroom” in H. Sheehan (Ed.), Mentoring Religious Education Teachers in the Secondary School (pp. 217–230). London: Routledge.
-
McDevitt, M., & Kiousis, S. (2006). “Deliberative learning: An evaluative approach to interactive civic education” in Communication Education, 55(3), 247–264.
-
Misco, T. (2012). “The Importance of Context for Teaching Controversial Issues in International Settings” in International Education, 42, 69–84.
-
Moulin, D. (2012). “Religious Education in England After 9/11” in Religious Education, 107(2), 158–173.
-
Nazar, N. P. (2020). “Teaching controversial issues in Religious Education: RE teachers’ attitudes and perceptions” in Greek Journal of Religious Education, 3(1), 45–66.
-
Orchard, J. (2015). “Does religious education promote good community relations?” in Journal of Beliefs & Values, 36(1), 40–53.
-
Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004). “Controversial Issues: Teachers’ Attitudes and Practices in the Context of Citizenship Education” in Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 489–507.
-
Öztürk, D. (2022). “Controversial issues: A mixed study with middle school students” in Participatory Educational Research, 9(4), 1–18.
-
Pace, J. L. (2019). “Contained risk-taking: Preparing pre-service teachers to teach controversial issues in three countries” in Theory & Research in Social Education, 47, 228–260.
-
Pace, J. L. (2021). Hard Questions: Learning to Teach Controversial Issues. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
-
Parker, W. C. (2010). “Listening to strangers: Classroom discussion in democratic education” in Teachers College Record, 112, 2815–2832.
-
Pollak, I., Segal, A., Lefstein, A. & Meshulam, A. (2017). “Teaching controversial issues in a fragile democracy: defusing deliberation in Israeli primary classrooms” in Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50, 1–23.
-
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
-
Quartermaine, A. (2016). “Discussing terrorism: a pupil-inspired guide to UK counter- terrorism policy implementation in religious education classrooms in England” in British Journal of Religious Education, 38(1), 13–29.
-
Ratzenböck, B., Scherke, K., Sprung, A. & Suppanz, W. (Eds.) (2023). Sozialer Zusammenhalt in der Krise. Bielefeld: transcript.
-
Riegel, U. (2021). “How integrated is the German academic discourse of RE? A case study on the justification of Religious Education at state schools since 2000 using Thematic Analysis and Network Analysis” in Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie, 73(1), 39–50.
-
Rissanen, I. & Sai, Y. (2018). “A comparative study of how social cohesion is taught in Islamic religious education in Finland and Ireland” in British Journal of Religious Education, 40(3), 337–347.
-
Saal, J. (2018). The Dark Social Capital of Religious Radicals. Jihadi Networks and Mobilization in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, 1998–2018. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
-
Sætra, E. (2021). “Discussing Controversial Issues in the Classroom: Elements of Good Practice” in Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(2), 345–357.
-
Schiefer, D. & Noll, J. van der (2017). “The Essentials of Social Cohesion: A Literature Review” in Social Indicators, 132, 579–603.
-
Schweitzer, F. & Boschki, R. (2018). “Introduction” in F. Schweitzer & R. Boschki (Eds.), Researching Religious Education: Classroom Processes and Outcomes (pp. 9–19) Münster/New York: Waxmann.
-
Schweitzer, F. (2022). “Von der religiösen zur interreligiösen Bildung? Einwände, theoretische Klärungen und empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit” in Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaften, 25, 5–23.
-
Tannebaum, R. P. (2020). “Controversial Public Issues in the Secondary Classroom: Exploring Teachers’ Thoughts and Perceptions” in Teacher Education Quarterly, 47(1), 7–26.
-
Torney-Purta, J. & Barber, C. (2005). “Democratic School Engagement and Civic Participation among European Adolescents: Analysis of Data from the IEA Civic Education Study” in Journal of Social Science Education, 4(3), 3–27.
-
Tuna, M. H. (2021). “Kontroversität: Notwendigkeit und Herausforderung in der Praxis des (islamischen) Religionsunterrichts” in Zeitschrift für Religionskunde, 9, 48–58.
-
Von der Lippe, M. (2021). “Teaching controversial issues in RE: the case of ritual circumcision” in British Journal of Religious Education, 43(1), 400–410.
-
Weiße, W. (2011). “Reflections on the REDCo project” in British Journal of Religious Education, 33(2), 111–125.
-
Williams, A., McKeown, S., Orchard, J. & Wright, K. (2019). “Promoting positive community relations: what can RE learn from social psychology and the shared space project?” in Journal of Beliefs & Values, 40(2), 215–227.
-
Winkler, K. & Scholz, S. (2021). “Subaltern Thinking in Religious Education? Postcolonial Readings of (German) Schoolbooks” in British Journal of Religious Education, 43(1), 103–122.
-
Woodward, R. 2012. “Community Cohesion” in L. P. Barnes (Ed.), Debates in Religious Education (pp. 132–145). Abingdon: Routledge.
-
Zembylas, M. & Kambani, F. (2012). “The teaching of controversial issues during elementary level history instruction: Greek-Cypriot teachers’ perceptions and emotions” in Theory and Research in Social Education, 40, 107–133.
-
Zhang, S., Shi, Q., Tonelson, S. & Robinson, J. (2009). “Preservice and inservice teachers’ perceptions of appropriateness of teacher self-disclosure” in Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1117–1124.
-
Ziebertz, H. G. (2010). “Gender in Islam und Christentum. Theoretische und Empirische Studien”. Münster: LIT.
-
Ziemes J. F. & Abs, H. J. (2020). “Zum politischen Mindset heranwachsender Bürger*innen – Ergebnisse aus ICCS 2016” in A. Albrecht et al. (Eds.), Jetzt erst recht: Politische Bildung! Bestandsaufnahme und bildungspolitische Forderungen (pp. 27–44). Frankfurt am Main: Wochenschau.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 650 | 442 | 53 |
| Full Text Views | 43 | 36 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 83 | 69 | 8 |
Is Discussing Controversial Issues in RE a Magic Bullet to Promote Social Cohesion? Mapping Opportunities and Challenges Based on Previous Research
In: Journal of Empirical TheologySearch for other papers by Jan-Hendrik Herbst in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
In the public debate, it is often argued that RE is important because it promotes social cohesion. In the academic debate, however, this position is controversial because, firstly, this goal is associated with a politicization of RE and, secondly, empirical evidence on whether or how RE causes this effect seems to be lacking. In this article, I argue first that cohesion is an adequate subgoal of RE, assuming a social rather than a state-political understanding of cohesion. Second, I refer to international studies on teaching controversial issues (CIs), which show that students can learn participation, tolerance, and common good orientation through high-quality exploration of CIs in class. However, due to methodological difficulties and negative side effects, the discussion of CIs in RE cannot be assumed to be a magic bullet for achieving cohesion. For instance, uncertainties and ambiguities accompany forms of dissent in the classroom, which may lead to authoritarian dispositions and political intolerance. In addition, there are particular challenges for inclusive and especially denominational RE in terms of teachers, issues, students, and external factors.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 650 | 442 | 53 |
| Full Text Views | 43 | 36 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 83 | 69 | 8 |