Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study of Religion
In: Method & Theory in the Study of ReligionSearch for other papers by Ann Taves in
Current site
Google Scholar
Executive Director, Center for Mind and Culture Boston, MA USA
Search for other papers by Wesley J. Wildman in
Current site
Google Scholar
Research Professor, NORCE Center for Modeling Social Systems Kristiansand Norway
Search for other papers by F. LeRon Shults in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Raymond F. Paloutzian in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The Values in Scholarship on Religion (VISOR) project collected data on the preferred methods and values of scholars in the academic study of religion. This dataset supports comparisons between members of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and partner organizations, such as the North American Association for the Study of Religion (NAASR), as well as members of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR). The AAR-partner sample differs from the SSSR sample in consistently preferring humanities over empirical approaches. Both samples were modestly aligned with the secular academy in rejecting theological claims as evidence. The subgroups within the AAR-partner sample that were affiliated with the International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR) were the most firmly committed to secular approaches and evidence. These findings indicate the range of perspectives currently present in the big-tent AAR, which deliberately embraces theological scholarship as well as secular religious studies research.
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
-
Holbrook, Clyde A. (1964). Why an academy of religion? Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 32, pp. 97–105.
-
Jensen, Tim, & Armin W. Geertz, eds. (2016). NVMEN, the Academic Study of Religion, and the IAHR: Past, Present and Prospects. Brill.
-
Martin, Luther H., & Donald Wiebe (2016). Establishing a beachhead: NAASR, twenty years later. In: Luther Martin & Donald Wiebe, eds., Conversations and Controversies in the Scientific Study of Religion, pp. 36–43. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004310452_008.
-
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25. pp. 1–65. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6.
-
Shults, F. LeRon, Wesley J. Wildman, Ann Taves, and Raymond F. Paloutzian (2020). What do religion scholars really want? Scholarly values in the scientific study of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 59 (1), pp. 18–38.
-
Tweed, Thomas A. (2016). 2015 Presidential Address: Valuing the study of religion: Improving difficult dialogues within and beyond the AAR’s “big tent.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 84(2), pp. 287–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfw019.
-
Wiebe, Donald (2000). The Politics of Religious Studies: The Continuing Conflict with Theology in the Academy (1st Palgrave ed). Palgrave.
-
Wiebe, Donald (2006). An eternal return all over again: The religious conversation endures. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74(3), pp. 674–696. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfj091.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 509 | 108 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 88 | 38 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 241 | 112 | 12 |
Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study of Religion
In: Method & Theory in the Study of ReligionSearch for other papers by Ann Taves in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Executive Director, Center for Mind and Culture Boston, MA USA
Search for other papers by Wesley J. Wildman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Research Professor, NORCE Center for Modeling Social Systems Kristiansand Norway
Search for other papers by F. LeRon Shults in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Raymond F. Paloutzian in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The Values in Scholarship on Religion (VISOR) project collected data on the preferred methods and values of scholars in the academic study of religion. This dataset supports comparisons between members of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and partner organizations, such as the North American Association for the Study of Religion (NAASR), as well as members of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR). The AAR-partner sample differs from the SSSR sample in consistently preferring humanities over empirical approaches. Both samples were modestly aligned with the secular academy in rejecting theological claims as evidence. The subgroups within the AAR-partner sample that were affiliated with the International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR) were the most firmly committed to secular approaches and evidence. These findings indicate the range of perspectives currently present in the big-tent AAR, which deliberately embraces theological scholarship as well as secular religious studies research.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 509 | 108 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 88 | 38 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 241 | 112 | 12 |