Save

Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study of Religion

In: Method & Theory in the Study of Religion
Authors:
Ann Taves Research Professor, Department of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA USA

Search for other papers by Ann Taves in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2695-5337
,
Wesley J. Wildman Professor, School of Theology, Faculty of Computing and Data Sciences, Boston University Boston, MA USA
Executive Director, Center for Mind and Culture Boston, MA USA

Search for other papers by Wesley J. Wildman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7571-1259
,
F. LeRon Shults Professor, Institute for Global Development, University of Agder Kristiansand Norway
Research Professor, NORCE Center for Modeling Social Systems Kristiansand Norway

Search for other papers by F. LeRon Shults in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0588-6977
, and
Raymond F. Paloutzian Emeritus Professor, Department of Psychology, Westmont College Santa Barbara, CA USA

Search for other papers by Raymond F. Paloutzian in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2601-3742
View More View Less
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$34.95

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.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 477 178 13
Full Text Views 72 38 4
PDF Views & Downloads 204 120 9