Download ebooks file The wiley blackwell companion to theology and qualitative research 1st edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-blackwell-companion-to-theology-and-qualit ative-research-1st-edition-knut-tveitereid/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Latinoax Theology 2nd Edition Orlando O. Espin
Wiley Blackwell Companion to Theology and Qualitative Research
The Wiley Blackwell Companions to Religion
The Wiley Blackwell Companions to Religion series presents a collection of the most recent scholarship and knowledge about world religions. Each volume draws together newly commissioned essays by distinguished authors in the field, and is presented in a style which is accessible to undergraduate students, as well as scholars and the interested general reader. These volumes approach the subject in a creative and forward-thinking style, providing a forum in which leading scholars in the field can make their views and research available to a wider audience.
Published
The Blackwell Companion to Judaism
Edited by Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck
The Blackwell Companion to Sociology of Religion
Edited by Richard K. Fenn
The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible
Edited by Leo G. Perdue
The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology
Edited by Graham Ward
The Blackwell Companion to Protestantism
Edited by Alister E. McGrath and Darren C. Marks
The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology
Edited by Gareth Jones
The Blackwell Companion to Religious Ethics
Edited by William Schweiker
The Blackwell Companion to Christian Spirituality
Edited by Arthur Holder
The Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Islamic Thought
Edited by Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi‛
The Blackwell Companion to the Bible and Culture
Edited by John F. A. Sawyer
The Blackwell Companion to Catholicism
Edited by James J. Buckley, Frederick C. Bauerschmidt and Trent Pomplun
The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity
Edited by Ken Parry
The Blackwell Companion to the Bible in English Literature
Edited by Rebecca Lemon, Emma Mason, John Roberts and Christopher Rowland
The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament
Edited by David E. Aune
The Blackwell Companion to Nineteenth-Century Theology
Edited by David Fergusson
The Blackwell Companion to Religion in America
Edited by Philip Goff
The Blackwell Companion to Jesus
Edited by Delbert Burkett
The Blackwell Companion to Paul
Edited by Stephen Westerholm
The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence
Edited by Andrew R. Murphy
The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics, Second Edition
Edited by Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology
Edited by Bonnie J. Miller McLemore
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Social Justice
Edited by Michael D. Palmer and Stanley M. Burgess
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Chinese Religions
Edited by Randall L. Nadeau
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to African Religions
Edited by Elias Kifon Bongmba
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Christian Mysticism
Edited by Julia A. Lamm
The Student’s Companion to the Theologians
Edited by Ian S. Markham
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Anglican Communion
Edited by Ian S. Markham, Barney Hawkins IV, Justyn Terry and Leslie Nuñez Steffensen
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Interreligious Dialogue
Edited by Catherine Cornille
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to East and Inner Asian Buddhism
Edited by Mario Poceski
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Israel
Edited by Susan Niditch
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism
Edited by Michael Stausberg, Yuhan Sohrab-Dinshaw Vevaina and Anna Tessmann
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics
Edited by Ken Parry
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to World Christianity
Edited by Lamin Sanneh and Michael J. McClymond
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Politics in the U.S.
Edited by Barbara A. McGraw
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Qur’ān, Second Edition
Edited by Andrew Rippin and Jawid Mojaddedi
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Ecology
Edited by John Hart
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Political Theology, Second Edition
Edited by William T. Cavanaugh and Peter Manley Scott
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Christian Martyrdom
Edited by Paul Middleton
The Wiley Blackwell Concise Companion to the Hadith
Edited by Daniel W. Brown
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Wisdom Literature
Edited by Samuel L. Adams and Matthew Goff
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Materiality
Edited by Vasudha Narayanan
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion, Second Edition
Edited by Robert Segal and Nickolas P. Roubekas
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Second Edition
Edited by Gavin Flood
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Theology and Qualitative Research
Edited by Pete Ward and Knut Tveitereid
Forthcoming
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Peace
Edited by Jolyon Mitchell, Suzanna R. Millar, Francesca Po and Martyn Percy
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Islamic Spirituality
Edited by Vincent J. Cornell and Bruce B. Lawrence
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Latinoax Theology, Second Edition
Edited by Orlando O. Espín
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Liturgical Theology
Edited by Porter Taylor and Khalia J Williams
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Catholicism, Second Edition
Edited by Frederick C. Bauerschmidt, James J. Buckley, Jennifer Newsome Martin and Trent Pomplun
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Theology and Qualitative Research
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Pete Ward and Knut Tveitereid to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Set in 10/12.5pt Photina by Straive, Pondicherry, India
47 Theology and Qualitative Research: Limits and New Directions
Swee Sum Lam
48 Congregations in Changing Times: Challenges Facing Romanian Churches After the Fall of Communism 503
Otniel Ioan Bunaciu
49 The Presence of Christ in Qualitative Research: Four Models and an Epilogue
Bård Norheim
List of Contributors
Dustin D. Benac. Visiting Assistant Professor of Practical Theology and Co-Director of the Program for the Future Church at Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, US.
Luke Bretherton. Robert E. Cushman Distinguished Professor of Moral and Political Theology at Duke Divinity School, US.
Christopher Craig Brittain. Dean of Divinity and the Margaret E. Fleck Chair in Anglican Studies at Trinity College in the University of Toronto, Canada.
Rein Brouwer. Associate Professor of Practical Theology at Protestant Theological University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Otniel Ioan Bunaciu. Professor at University of Bucharest, Romania.
Helen Cameron. Research Fellow in Baptist Studies at Regent’s Park College, Oxford, UK.
Eileen R. Campbell-Reed. Visiting Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology and Care at Union Theological Seminary, New York, US.
Angela Cowser. Associate Dean of Black Church Studies and Doctor of Ministry Programs and Associate Professor of Black Church Studies at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, US.
Sarah Dunlop. Lecturer in Practical Theology at Ridley Hall, University of Cambridge, UK.
Ninna Edgardh. Professor in Ecclesiology at Uppsala University, Sweden.
Kirsten Donskov Felter. Senior Researcher / Associate Professor of Theological Issues at Centre for Pastoral Education and Research, Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Denmark.
Paul S. Fiddes. Professor of Systematic Theology at University of Oxford, UK.
Marianne Gaarden. Bishop in the diocese of Lolland-Falster, Church of Denmark.
Stephen Garner. Academic Dean and Senior Lecturer in Theology at Laidlaw College, Auckland, New Zealand and Senior Research Fellow at the Australian College of Theology, Sydney, Australia.
Yara González-Justiniano. Assistant Professor of Religion, Psychology, and Culture at Vanderbilt University, US.
Rachelle R. Green. Assistant Professor of Practical Theology and Education at Fordham University’s Graduate School of Religion and Religious Education, US.
Christine J. Hong. Associate Professor of Educational Ministry at Columbia Theological Seminary, US.
Janna L. Hunter-Bowman. Associate Professor of Peace Studies and Christian Social Ethics at Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary, US.
Jonas Ideström. Professor of Practical Theology at Stockholm School of Theology, Sweden.
Kirstine Helboe Johansen. Associate Professor of Practical Theology at Aarhus University, Denmark.
Elisabeth Tveito Johnsen. Associate Professor of Practical Theology at University of Oslo, Norway.
Tone Stangeland Kaufman. Professor of Practical Theology at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, Norway.
Lap Yan Kung. Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Swee Sum Lam. Senior Fellow at the National University of Singapore Business School, and Director at the Asian Pastoral Institute, Singapore.
Easten Law. Assistant Director for Academic Programs, Overseas Ministries Study Center at Princeton Theological Seminary, US.
Gerardo Martí. William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Sociology at Davidson College, US.
Bonnie J. Miller- McLemore. E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Professor of Religion, Psychology, and Culture, Emerita, at Vanderbilt University, US.
Mary Clark Moschella. Professor of Pastoral Theology and Care at Yale Divinity School, US.
Harriet Mowat. An author in Practical Theology and Tutor at St John’s College, Durham University, UK.
Sabrina Müller. Managing Director of the University Research Priority Program “Digital Religion(s)”, Co-Director Center for Church Development and Senior Lecturer in Practical Theology at University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Bård Norheim. Professor of Theology at NLA University College, Norway.
Glenn Packiam. Associate Senior Pastor, New Life Church, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, and Visiting Fellow at St. John’s College, Durham University, UK.
Ruth Perrin. Research Fellow at St John’s College, University of Durham, UK.
Tanya Riches. Senior Lecturer of Theology, Religion and Culture at Hillsong College, Australia.
Henk de Roest. Professor of Practical Theology at Protestant Theological University, The Netherlands.
Andrew P. Rogers. Principal Lecturer in Practical Theology at the University of Roehampton, UK.
Hans Schaeffer. Professor of Practical Theology at Kampen Theological University, The Netherlands.
Christian Scharen. Pastor at St. Lydia’s Dinner Church, NY, US.
Ulla Schmidt. Professor WSR of Practical Theology at Aarhus University, Denmark.
Nicola Slee. Professor of Feminist Practical Theology at The Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam and the Queen’s Foundation for Ecumenical Theological Education, UK.
P.M (Ronelle) Sonnenberg. Assistant Professor of Practical Theology at the Protestant Theological University, The Netherlands.
John Swinton. Professor in Practical Theology and Pastoral Care at University of Aberdeen, UK.
Gabrielle Thomas. Assistant Professor of Early Christianity and Anglican Studies at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, US.
Knut Tveitereid. Associate Professor of Practical Theology at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, Norway.
Pete Ward. Professor of Practical Theology at Durham University, UK and NLA University College, Norway.
Clare Watkins. Reader in Ecclesiology and Practical Theology at University of Roehampton, UK.
Shantelle Weber. Associate Professor in Practical Theology at Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
Natalie Wigg-Stevenson. Associate Professor of Contextual Education and Theology at Emmanuel College of Victoria University and Toronto School of Theology, Canada.
About the Editors
Pete Ward is Professor of Practical Theology at Durham University, UK and NLA University College in Bergen, Norway. He is one of the network co-ordinator s of the Ecclesiology and Ethnography Network (E&E) and served as Editor of the journal Ecclesial Practices . He is the author of Liquid Ecclesiology: The Gospel and the Church and Celebrity Worship.
Knut Tveitereid is Associate Professor of Practical Theology and Head of Ministry Training at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society in Oslo, Norway. He is closely involved in the Ecclesiology and Ethnography Network (E&E) and serves as Academic Coordinator for the E&E Network’s annual Durham Conference.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Pete Ward and Knut Tveitereid
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Theology and Qualitative Research has its origins in the conversations that have taken place within the Ecclesiology and Ethnography Network. The network started in 2007 with a conference exploring how theologians might work more closely with what was at the time loosely called “ethnography.” These debates have continued at the American Academy of Religion in the Ecclesial Practices group and through the journal Ecclesial Practices published by Brill.
Our interest in this area was, in part, spawned by George Lindbeck’s proposal in The Nature of Doctrine (1984) that ethnography should have a significant role to play in theological method. Qualitative research had for some time been used within practical theology and fields such as liturgical studies and Christian education. Here the convention had been that social science formed a moment in the examination of practice. The researcher was expected to step into a new discipline to complete a certain kind of analysis through empirical methods, and then they were to move to the theological discipline to reflect on the social scientific data that had been gathered. What has generally been termed the “correlational approach” became institutionalized within theological education through the pastoral cycle. Something akin to correlation is inherent in Lindbeck’s thinking, but for many of us the interesting questions and challenges emerged when we began to use qualitative methods as theologians without assuming that, in order to do this, we had to switch disciplinary identities. In other words, reaching beyond correlation and the assumption that specific methods, such as interviews or participant observation or focus groups, necessarily meant juggling different disciplinary hats, to a place where theological questions and concerns would remain the focus of research throughout.
In the last 20 year s, there has been a steady rise in the number of doctoral students and academics who have taken up the challenge of working as theologians with qualitative methods of inquiry. This upsurge in interest has been driven by the sense that theology
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Theology and Qualitative Research, First Edition. Edited by Pete Ward and Knut Tveitereid.
needs to be deeply rooted in contexts. Qualitative research has become a way to pay close attention to communities and individuals who have previously been excluded or silenced in theological work. Alongside this, there has been a deep desire to do research that makes a difference in the Church and wider society. Qualitative research offers the promise of a robust and disciplined means of paying attention that can shape theological engagement. The sense is that theological proposals for the life of the Church and for society, in order to be useful and credible, need to be formulated in and through a deep engagement with communities. In the process of generating new insights and perspectives, it has become clear that what is meant by theology and, indeed, what it means to be a theologian has undergone significant revision. This volume is born of an excitement around these developments.
In the chapters that follow, different researchers set out their journey in this fast-emerging field of study. It is worth saying at the outset that while many of us have been involved in the Ecclesiology and Ethnography Network, it would be wrong to assume that suggests a unified approach or viewpoint. We come with different theological commitments and disciplinary locations. We also represent a variety of approaches to and uses of qualitative methods. What the chapters in this book represent is a convergence around the epistemological and methodological issues that arise in the intersection between theology and qualitative research.
The conversation has led us to at least three realizations thus far: First, when theology and qualitative research are brought together, theology is shaped by it. Qualitative research offers theology access to voices from below in a systematic manner. New forms of theology are given a voice, albeit these voices are not new in the sense that they are produced by the research –they are there already – but brought to attention and given status through qualitative methods. These voices often bring critique, nuance, messiness, expansion, creativity, and revelation to the table of theology. An apparent aim for this book is to underline these kinds of contributions.
Second, when theology and qualitative methods are brought together, qualitative research is shaped by it. Theology, at its best, makes people see. Theology offers language, concepts, and models for the researcher to see what is in the empirical field. Theology, then, can give the researcher – and thereby the reader – a richer and truer image of what is already at play. Over time, some qualitative approaches methods have proven particularly helpful. Other approaches have been developed further to better fit with studying theology in practice, to which this book accounts.
Third, when theology and qualitative methods are brought together, new problems arise. The relationship between the two is not an obvious one, nor is it frictionless. Traditionally theology is, in Kantian terms, situated within the “world of ideas,” whereas qualitative methods aim at describing the “world of experiences.” In theory, the two are incommensurable. In practice, however, an increasing number of researchers insist on the relationship and find it fruitful. We have tried not to let the newly won enthusiasm overshadow the proper problems that are present. Several limitations, reservations, and dilemmas are identified and discussed throughout the book.
The book is divided into parts. Part I “Naming the Field” depicts how theology and qualitative research represents different things to different people, depending on the angle of approach and the perspectives they bring to the conversation. In this first part, we have invited central scholars to describe the field from their perspective, identify what is at stake, and name this emerging research interest. Driving questions are: What is the contribution of qualitative
research to the field of theology? How is the field of theology and qualitative research perceived from various perspectives? How does theology and qualitative research change what it means to be a theologian?
Part II “Theology and Qualitative Research as Forms of Knowledge” aims to qualify theology and qualitative research epistemologically. Whenever a theologian adopts qualitative research methods, fundamental questions could and should be raised: How is qualitative research theological, and how do we know that? What is theology, and where is it found? What is its revelatory status and its normativity?
Part III “Theology and Qualitative Research: Continuities and Discontinuities” highlights how theology and qualitative research relies on several theological traditions in critical dialogue. This part positions theology and qualitative research by describing continuities and discontinuities in selected theological traditions. The central question in this is: What is the theological contribution of qualitative research beyond practical theology?
Part IV “The Empirical Turn in Practical Theology” describes how qualitative research has become the modus operandi of practical theological research, thereby changing the discipline from within. Even practical theology’s clerical subdisciplines are broadened and reshaped by empirical insights. Core questions are: How is theology and qualitative research shaping practical theology? How can theology and qualitative research contribute to the understanding of Church ministry, including education for ministry?
Part V “The Practice Theology and Qualitative Research” critically explores what happens to the craft of qualitative research when used by theologians. The chapters are not an exhaustive review of all methods or phases of research but seek to highlight some of the more common approaches to qualitative research in theology and its implications: Is there something distinctly unique in how a theologian is doing qualitative research? What methods have, in particular, proven valuable within theology?
In the final part, “Responses and Dissent,” we let voices from the outside be heard. Selected scholars – familiar to, but not necessarily acquainted with Ecclesiology and Ethnography –describe and assess theology and qualitative research from their perspective. Central questions are: What are the blind spots of theology and qualitative research? Which areas should future scholarship pay better attention to? How is the contribution of theology and qualitative research viewed outside the western world?
A standing joke compares a theologian to a blind person who enters a dark room searching for a black cat that is not there – and finds it. Admittedly, theologians have blind spots, but this book argues that theologians equipped with qualitative ways of seeing have better vision than those without. The question of whether or not the cat – in the sense of God – is there will always be a question of faith, not scientific observation. Nevertheless, this book argues, alongside the rest of the theological field, that theology, indeed, is present in most rooms, in and out of Church. The cat – understood as words, interpretations, practices, and experiences about God – is there to be observed. In fact, more often than not, there is more than one theology present. Theology and qualitative research represent this diversity, complexity, and richness, which corresponds well to theologies in the lived.
reference
Lindbeck, G. (1984). The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. London: SPCK.
Naming the Field
As the interest in theology and qualitative research has grown, academics have journeyed with its possibilities in different ways. The effect has been not simply the challenge and opportunity of a new research method but also a sense of excitement around the new insights and perspectives that qualitative research brings to the task of doing theology. In this first part, we have invited people to write about their experience and the various ways they have found qualitative research to be a fruitful and challenging approach to doing theology.
CHAPTER 2
Theology and Qualitative Research: An Uneasy Relationship
Pete Ward
There is a joke that I think neatly encapsulates our conversations around theology and qualitative research. It is loosely based on Isaiah 11:6, but somehow the biblical vision of peace and harmony is given a world-wear y twist, “And the lion shall lie down with the lamb, but the lamb won’t get much sleep.” The joke of course relies on the power imbalance between the lion and the lamb, and it is precisely this issue that lies at the heart of the academic consideration of the relationship between theology and qualitative research, although which might be considered as being the lamb and which the lion might vary. Both carry in them an epistemological force. Qualitative research implies notions of empirical evidence and observation; theology, on the other hand, has tended to align itself with notions of revelation and rationality. These epistemological concerns are shaped by disciplinary norms and conventions that have until quite recently served to structure the relationship between theology and qualitative research in ways that mean they generally regard themselves as distinct. Keeping things separate has been orientated in different ways depending on disciplinary identity but, put simply, theologians and social scientists have established conventions that, although differently configured, serve as a way to ensure that theology and qualitative research do not have to lie down together.
Opting for Single Rooms
The standard approach to this issue in theology has been to utilize ideas of correlation (Tracy 1975). Basic to this approach is the conviction that while theology should draw upon forms of knowledge generated by qualitative methods, the conversation is structured around
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Theology and Qualitative Research, First Edition. Edited by Pete Ward and Knut Tveitereid.
distinct moments (Browning 1991). The forms of knowledge that come from empirical work are then to be correlated with forms of knowledge that are seen as theological. It is fundamental to this approach that qualitative research methods are seen as being part of a distinct discipline, namely social science, and that theology is in its essence something distinct. Correlation was institutionalized in practical theology through various versions of the pastoral cycle where students were taught to negotiate a path from practice to theory via stages that start with analysis drawn from the social sciences followed by biblical and doctrinal reflection (Thompson 2008). Correlation in a sense solved the problem by keeping theology and qualitative research in separate rooms. While a conversation takes place, fundamentally each is allowed its own space to be its own person (Pattison 2007). Here notions of respect and hearing the other are key, but for many in the theological world there has been a distinct concern to maintain strict boundaries. Theology, it is argued, is a discipline set apart and it alone is able to speak about God (Milbank 1990). Social science might have a place, but it also needs to know its place.
These kinds of attitudes are not found only among theologians, social science has also been concerned to draw lines in ways that establish clear disciplinary boundaries. Here theology is acceptable as long as it is seen as being data, so a consideration of the beliefs, myths, rituals, and practices of a particular group or community often forms a part of the study of religion (Marti 2016). Theology might be discussed, but it features because it is part of the fieldwork context. Theology is important to the participants and the context and as such it is rightfully a part of a study. Theology as data is acceptable, but theology as an external theoretical framework or critical form of analysis is not. This means that when it comes to theoretical considerations, analysis, and most significantly any attempt to draw implications and conclusions, theological voices from outside the data set are not normally seen as playing a role.
Opting for single rooms makes a great deal of sense. It solves the uncomfortable task of finding a way to get along. It keeps things simple, and it fulfills the requirements of academic convention. It is worth being straightforward about precisely what lies at the heart of the problem. The word “theology” is basically a polite way to introduce God into the conversation. The real issue is not how disciplines work or what methods are required; the fundamental point of contention is God. Social scientists for the most part don’t do God. Theologians, on the other hand, think they are uniquely placed to talk about God. This is what makes the relationship awkward. Getting to grips with what exactly is going on, however, requires some fancy academic footwork or at least the odd nimble dance move. The first move relates to qualitative research itself.
The convention has been to regard qualitative research as social science. This means that the theologian does not simply immediately adopt new methods of inquiry, but also tends to internalize some sense that they are moving outside their discipline. This is a form of correlation that is carried inside a disciplinary identity. The first nimble dance step, then, is to begin to see the methods associated with qualitative research as something distinct from any disciplinary location within the social sciences. This should not mean setting on one side all the wisdom gained, for instance in ethnographic research within anthropology, or the methodological discussions around participation and fieldwork within sociology. Theologians should be open to learning and theory from a range of sources. The key issue that is at stake here is the simple move that says the methods that make up qualitative research are not inevitably or essentially located within one disciplinary context. Removing this assumption means that is perfectly
possible for a theologian to make use of qualitative research methods in much the same way as geographers, educationalists, criminologists and ethnomusicologists routinely do. The point here is that the methods used in qualitative research do not of themselves predetermine any disciplinary location. The historic reluctance on the part of theologians to embrace qualitative research is slightly curious given the ease with which forms of literary criticism or philosophy or history are incorporated in a range of theological projects. On a practical level it is important to note that fieldwork takes a significant investment not simply in terms of the time it takes, but also in the engagement and apprentice-based learning of the craft that is required to do it well. For a theologian who has already been expected to master philosophy, languages, biblical studies, and the history of doctrine this can feel daunting. That said it is not really the demands of fieldwork that stand in the way of theology and qualitative research finding a way to coexist; basically it boils down to the question of God and negotiating the God question requires more nimble footwork.
The Really Awkward Question
I was first drawn to qualitative research as a result of my work among young people (Ward 2008). A few years working as a youth minister convinced me that the issues that I was facing were in some sense cultural as much as they were spiritual or theological (Ward 1997). Moving into qualitative research has been a logical outworking of this realization. There were, however, significant theological concerns at play for me. Questions of culture also led toward contextual theology. Here the central concern rotated around what exactly was meant by theology and who should be considered as a theologian. Assumptions then around what was meant when we used the word “theology” became problematized (Bevans 1992). Qualitative research was a vantage point, or a means to explore the dynamics of contextualization. If theology was to be seen as positioned in social and cultural locations, then the obvious way to address this insight is to adopt a form of social inquiry that paid close attention to these dynamics. Qualitative research was an ideal method to explore this kind of contextual theology but in truth it has been a road less traveled, with contextual theologians often choosing to work with philosophy or critical theory rather than fieldwork. What qualitative research brings to contextual theology is a disciplined and structured approach to hearing the voices of individuals and communities who have often been overlooked, which has been one of the most closely held values of contextual theology from its outset.
When theologians engage deeply in fieldwork awkwardness is ever present. Qualitative research disrupts settled positions and assumptions (Swinton and Mowat 2006). Within some theological circles it has been assumed that there is a distinction between first and second order forms of theology (Lindbeck 1984). First order theology is found in the everyday life of the Christian community, and it is intimately related to scripture and shaped by liturgical life and the sacraments. Second order theology is, by contrast conducted by academic theologians who engage in critical conversation, primarily with each other, but also in relation to first order theology. In practice the first order theology is often unexamined or introduced as anecdote. Qualitative research serves to complicate this distinction. Through close and disciplined attention to the theological expression of the Christian community a distinctive and authentic voice, or to be more accurate voices, can emerge (Cameron et al. 2010). The assumption that it is for second order theological work to generate rules and norms becomes
less credible as the designated role and purpose of the theologian is problematized by the realization that critical reflection and issues of normativity are also located within communities as much as they might be in professional theologians. The theologian who engages in qualitative research therefore almost inevitably finds themselves acting as an arbiter between theological voices generated through fieldwork and those external theological sources that form the substance of academic debate and reference. Doing qualitative research as a theologian is also in itself a theological task.
Qualitative research makes the questions “what is theology?” and “how is it done?” much more complicated. The slippery 3D game of chess that develops around theology and qualitative research, however, becomes much more serious when the idea of God is introduced. The word “theology” in a sense brings a polite edge to the debates. It hides the real sticking point with the pretense that what is being discussed is something to do with academic disciplines when, to be frank, it is not and it never was. The really awkward truth is that theology and qualitative research are uneasy bedfellows because of conflicting approaches to God. This is laid bare if we ask: Is it possible to learn anything about God using qualitative empirical methods? Pressing such a question reveals the parting of the ways. It seems a crude and an inappropriate question to introduce. Some theologians might object to the suggestion that God might be “seen” in qualitative data because this appears to bypass notions of revelation (Webster 2012). Others, however, might have chosen to adopt qualitative methods precisely because they believe that in the depth of human experience, and in particular among the marginal and those who suffer, the divine is uniquely to be found. The turn toward new sources of theology is often motivated by the sense that the canon of doctrinal theology has been dominated by white male authors and that tradition has served to exclude the voices of women and the marginalized. Qualitative research becomes then a method that opens up new directions in theological study while at the same time disrupting previous positions. While this is a liberationist journey driven by critical theory what makes it theological is what this process says of God, i.e. that God is present and revealed in and through the experiences of particular groups and individuals. Once again, the awkwardness around theology and qualitative research is linked to the God question. When theology is seen as a reference to an academic discipline, or a cultural expression of belief, things are complex, but this complexity is not really insurmountable. It is the claim that something that is called theology is basically about God that rests at the heart of the uneasy relationship.
More than Just data
The claim that qualitative research can be a means to generate knowledge of God is uncomfortable. One reason for this lies in the word “empirical.” The assumption in qualitative methods is that it is possible through interviews and participant observation and other forms of data gathering to observe something; of course, at the heart of all of this there is the one doing the observing: the researcher. It is the researcher who interprets and chooses and edits material. Qualitative research is by its nature subjective rather than objective. It is perhaps closer to being an art than a science. It uncovers meaning rather than measuring numerical trends. Having said all of this, the claim that using these means it is possible to say something about God feels on the face of it to be wrong. God, it is argued, can’t be seen or observed or recorded and transcribed. It is then much more comfortable to say that what can be recorded
are the beliefs and experiences of communities and individuals. According to this view we can speak with confidence about God as an agent in the lives of the Church we are studying when expressing the views of this community or the individual we are interviewing as long as this view is that of the interviewee. What we cannot do is come to a judgment that this experience and these beliefs are actually knowledge of God. This approach then denies theology a normative role in relations to questions of the divine. Such an approach in effect returns to the notion that theology is really only data and we retreat to our separate rooms for the night.
Interestingly, where those who have drawn deeply from the social sciences are reluctant to consider the God question, except as a part of the data, many theologians have no such problems. Theologians of all kinds appear to have few or no worries about saying things about God, often with remarkable certainty; in fact, debating normative claims about the action and being of God are the bread and butter of the discipline. The move toward qualitative research presses on the theologian’s happy acceptance of speech about God and asks: “Is it possible that we can see God in the lived experience of communities and individuals?” At its heart this is what is at stake in the debate around theology and qualitative research. The awkwardness that is felt by many theologians in this question needs to be understood through the turf wars of modern theological debate. Put simply, the theological world is marked by the trenches and bunkers that have been made by the conflict between liberal and conservative forms of theology (Ford 2005). Liberal theology tended to see human experience as a site for theological knowledge. Conservative theology has tended to prioritize doctrine and propositional truth. Correlation was in essence an attempt to mediate between these two positions to find a middle way (Lindbeck 1984). The proposal that qualitative research might generate knowledge of God is all too easily read through this turf war. On the one hand, there are those who still cling to a liberal position, embracing qualitative research as the means to press further with their preferred approach. For others, qualitative research as a form of theology is seen as being anathema or only acceptable if contained by a clearly defined correlational demarcation.
The contemporary move toward qualitative research among theologians is an attempt to break out of the trenches of previous positions (Healy 2000). Correlation and liberal theology have been replaced by a desire among some to see previous distinctions collapse into one another or, if we like, lie down with one another. The God question has been central to these developments. For those who seek to prioritize voices that have been largely ignored, qualitative research takes on a salvific purpose. Adopting the method of research is, then, itself a theological position that brings about transformation. At its heart this collapses the binary positions generated by correlation, and qualitative research moves from a method to a means of realizing a theological goal. This move arises from commitments around who God is and how God might be apprehended and, above all, what it means to encounter this God. This further complicates what we mean by the word “theology” as it becomes intertwined with the method as a result of the intentions of the researcher. At the same time this method generates data that itself can speak in new ways of God and the world from the perspective of those who previously had not been heard. Qualitative research thus generates a further layer to what it means to say the word “theology.”
Parts of the contemporary theological scene in the UK and in the US has been characterized by a return to scripture and doctrine as an organizing lens (Ford 2005). In particular there has been a renewed interest in Trinitarian and Christological thought as a framework for structuring debates around the Church, wider society, politics, and ethics. Perhaps surprisingly, qualitative research has been adopted by a number of prominent theologians as a
partner to this kind of theological discussion (Healy 2000; Bretherton 2014; Watkins 2021). Here the justification for such a move also relates directly to God, for while the source of doctrinally informed theology is rooted in scripture and revelation, these sources point toward divine agency in the Church and in wider society. Theologians who turn to qualitative research, then, are taking seriously the doctrinally based theological claims that, for instance, God might be present and active in the worship, teaching, and fellowship of a local Church, or indeed that God might be active in creation, or in the beauty of human cultural creativity. Qualitative research then becomes a means to discern divine agency and to explore the gritty reality of the movement of the Spirit in the Church and in the world (Watkins 2021). There is a mischievousness to these kinds of projects, not simply because they collapse correlation, but because they take the claims of doctrinally constructed theology at their word.
More than Just ideas
The uneasy relationship between theology and qualitative research is further complicated by the way in which fieldwork reconfigures and disrupts what is meant by the term “theology” (Swinton and Mowat 2006). Theology that is found in communities and in the lives and experiences of individuals comes in forms and types of expression that are much more varied than a written academic text. Qualitative research draws attention to the embodied and cultural forms that make up theology in lived communities. It is a mistake, however, to see qualitative research as a means by which abstract theological thought can be produced in relation to lived expression and community. Rather, the first move is to realize that theology exists in a variety of forms in, with, and through the life of communities and in a whole range of material and cultural forms; indeed, what the process of fieldwork brings about is the realization that it is in these forms and places that theology actually is alive. Qualitative research takes seriously the notion that it is in the lives of communities and individuals that we find the natural environment for theology where it is energized by the work of the Spirit. At the same time, it is also important to acknowledge that the theological data generated by fieldwork is often ambiguous and sometimes contradictory, and occasionally incoherent. This quite simply reflects the messy nature of theology as it exists in cultural expression and community life. For a discipline that often seeks to create systematic accounts of the divine and of human life this can be perplexing, but the very complexity of lived reality is one of the gifts that qualitative research brings to theological work.
There is a further dynamic that takes place through the discipline of engaging in fieldwork; the theologian themself is transformed (Whitmore 2019). Just as theology is seen as being a great deal more varied than simply academic texts, so also the task of being a theologian becomes an embodied and sensory craft. Researchers sense that they are “on holy ground” when they interview others, or when they share in a community experience. The act of doing qualitative research is, then, experienced as theology, as the method itself brings about an experience that is on the edge of something profound and charged with a sense of the divine. Here again it is God that is fundamental to this transformation of what we mean by theology and what we mean by doing theology. It is not that God does not work in and through the more traditional texts associated with theology, or even that these texts are somehow incidental, or at one remove from life. Rather, what qualitative research draws the theologian toward is the rightful setting for these more abstract reflections. In other words, there is a dynamic
relationship between written academic forms of theology and the lived. Qualitative research rests on this relation for, while it is in the experience and practices of communities that theology appears to be most alive, the research method is designed to generate an account of what is observed. This account will be itself an abstract expression of what has been researched. There are, then, deep affinities when the eventual academic outcome of qualitative research and more traditional forms of theologizing are compared. The mistake, however, is to see the eventual text that is produced as being in some way more theological than the experiences and expressions that shape the lives of individuals and communities.
Theology and Qualitative Research: Bedding down Research design
Qualitative research produces texts for a reason. When the work is done as theology, this reason is itself theological. As I have been arguing throughout this chapter, this is often much easier said than done. Theology exists in so many different forms. Even more perplexing is the realization that in different places, what we call theology appears to function differently, or at least to connect with thought and action differently. It is worth repeating that qualitative research has become a go-to method for theologians par tly because this realization has become more evident and interesting for those working in areas such as, ecclesiology, Christian ethics, mission studies and systematic theology. Theoretical debates in these fields have led the way for many and caused them to dip their toe into qualitative research, and some have dived right in and committed themselves to extended periods of fieldwork. At the same time, what many of us have realized is that when we take the plunge finding a way for theology and qualitative research to rest easily together requires close attention. The main reason for this is that the many layers of what might be called “theology” operate in different ways across every aspect of a project.
How and in what ways theology might be part of research design and implementation requires consideration right from the start and at every significant stage in conducting the research. Theology is not something that can be added at the last minute or sprinkled across the top to make things look right. Close consideration needs to be given to theology all the way through the research process. Every project is shaped fundamentally by the key research questions that are addressed. How these might be theological and, indeed, what exactly is meant by theology in this particular project is a fundamental consideration. The researchers themselves will also need to reflect upon the extent to which their own commitments and beliefs shape the choice of project, and in an ongoing commitment to reflexivity that is fundamental to qualitative research these will need to be returned to at key moments in the project. Closely linked to the research questions and reflexivity is the body of knowledge that forms the backdrop to the research design. Here again the question of how and in what ways the project might make a significant contribution to a specific area of theological knowledge becomes of strategic importance. Theoretical frameworks are obviously fundamental in research design and here also the question of theology comes into play. It is almost certainly the case, however, that a range of theoretical materials will form part of research design and here the questions of how different disciplinary perspectives are related and, in particular, what weight the theological voice might or indeed might not have in the project. There is, it is worth saying, no right answer to this. Different researchers will approach interdisciplinarity in different ways, some arguing that theology is one voice among many and others wanting to insist that it is the organizing and
normative framework. The key element in my view is that time is spent thinking about the theoretical shape of the project and how and in what ways theology is a part, and that this discussion is made explicit in any methodological sections of a thesis or a report.
Fieldwork is always shaped in the first instance by the research questions. If the questions have set out a clear theological orientation or concern, then the methods chosen should reflect this fact. Having said this, the multilayered nature of theology means that it is only through close attention to the lived that key theological themes become clear. Data gathering and data analysis need to be sensitized to the ambiguous and messy nature of theology as it is lived; moreover the different kinds of theological expression that might characterize a fieldwork setting need to all form part of data gathering. Data analysis in qualitative research is built around close attention and listening to the voices and themes that emerge. Here again, being attuned to the possible range of theological voices becomes central. Keeping data analysis theological is a craft. As a project moves to analysis there is often a return to theory. Here theology might not simply be part of the substantive concerns of the project, but also form part of the resources that are drawn into the conversation to bring depth and critique. The return to theory, however, is also shaped by making explicit what the project brings to knowledge. Significantly, how the research says something new or important in theological conversation is particularly important. Closely linked to these academic concerns might be a desire to contribute to the ongoing theological life of a community or particular individuals.
The brief survey of the range of theological concerns that are involved in qualitative research is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather the intention has been to illustrate the complexity that is involved in keeping a close eye on how theology might be considered to be part of the project. The point is that the relationship between theology and qualitative research in practice is complex and multilayered and, if each is to find a way to lie down with the other, there is a great deal of thoughtful preparation that is required.
References
Bevans, S. (1992). Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis.
Bretherton, L. (2014). Resurrecting Democracy: Faith, Citizenship, and the Politics of a Common Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Browning, D.S. (1991). A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Proposals. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Cameron, H., Bhatti, D., Duce, C. et al. (2010). Talking About God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical Theology. London: SCM Press.
Ford, D. (ed.) (2005). The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Healy, N.M. (2000). Church, World and the Christian Life: Practical-Prophetic Ecclesiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindbeck, G. (1984). The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. London: SPCK. Marti, G. (2016). Found theology versus imposed theologies: remarks on theology and ethnography from a sociological per spective. Ecclesial Pract. 3 (2): 157–172.
Milbank, J. (1990). Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pattison, S. (2007). The Challenge of Practical Theology: Selected Essays. London: Jessica Kingsley. Swinton, J. and Mowat, H. (2006). Practical Theology and Qualitative Research. London: SCM Press.
Thompson, J. (2008). Theological Reflection. London: SCM Press.
Tracy, D. (1975). Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology. New York: Seabury Press.
Ward, P. (1997). Youthwork and the Mission of God. London: SPCK.
Ward, P. (2008). Participation and Mediation: A Practical Theology for the Liquid Church. London: SCM Press.
Watkins, C. (2021). Disclosing Church: An Ecclesiology Learned from Conversation in Practice. London: Routledge.
Webster, J. (2012, 2012). ‘In the Society of God’: some principles of ecclesiology. In: Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethnography (ed. P. Ward). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Whitmore, T. (2019). Imitating Christ in Magwi: An Anthropological Theology. London: T and T Clark.
CHAPTER 3
Qualitative Research in Theology: A Spiritual Turn?
Clare Watkins
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28)
This chapter explores something of a spiritual turn within theology, which has a particular connection with the turn to practice of which practical theology is the dominant expression. I argue that this instinct toward spirituality as an essential practice for the theologian – and especially for the practice-engaged theologian – is necessary for any integrated account of theology. Such integration has long been a key motivation for practical theologians and is a key reason for a theological use of qualitative research methods; but it requires more than the bringing together of theory and practice. For the theologian employing qualitative research there is a call also to develop spiritual practices which bear witness to the fundamental theological reason for an integrated theology. This fundamental reality is, I suggest, bound up in the doctrine of the Trinity as God-with-us, and in our theology of, and faith in, the Holy Spirit in particular.
This spiritual turn has its parallels in wider theology as we shall see; but distinctly for practical theology it is a turn born of the same foundational practical theological instinct toward integration that has made social science methods, such as qualitative research, so much a part of practical theology today. Building on this instinct, the spiritual turn for which I am arguing recognizes the complexity of the task that faces us in integrating faith’s practices and faith’s academic and ecclesial articulations (Miller-McLemore and Mercer 2016). At the same time, it responds to certain lacks within a good deal of theological work with qualitative research methods, where all too often attentive description is left without significant theological learning. I will first set out some bases for this spiritual turn through the perspectives of systematic theology and of my own work, before turning to explore an increasing number of
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Theology and Qualitative Research, First Edition. Edited by Pete Ward and Knut Tveitereid.
practical theologians working with qualitative research methods and reflecting on spirituality. These authors are beginning to develop ways of theological empirical work which are thoroughly attentive to the work of the Holy Spirit, and demand spiritual practices as an integrative aspect of their qualitative research. This has powerful implications for the theological qualitative researcher, of a formative as well as performative nature.
Qualitative Research and the integration of Theology: A Mixed Blessing?
To understand the significance of this spiritual turn it is helpful to locate it in the turn to practice which is at practical theology’s heart. This practical turn is born out of a desire to integrate academic theology and faith living, doctrine and practice, in our articulations of faith (Woodward and Pattison 2000, pp. 13–16; Miller-McLemore 2013, p. 6). The practical theological prioritizing of practices, against a background of a wider turn to practice (MillerMcLemore 2013, pp. 1–6, 14), lies behind the theological engagement with qualitative research methods. From the start, such engagement has been a response to properly theological concerns about the integration of doctrine and faith-life; there is in theology’s use of qualitative research a belief that attentiveness to practices will equip us better to hear God’s Word, to sense the Holy Spirit for our own time and place. The turn to qualitative methods is, itself, a response to a fundamental theology of revelation (Watkins 2020, pp. 239–249; see pp. 34–35 and 49–52). This practical turn is not, then, only pragmatic; it has something to do with our doctrine of the Trinity, our understanding of divine revelation, and, above all, our belief in the Holy Spirit and the difference such belief makes.
In all this, qualitative research methods have proved an invaluable tool.1 Indeed, a real resonance between the concerns of qualitative researchers and practical theologians can be recognized as they come together in a common search for “truth in the world” and shared “recognition that the world is considerably more complex and interesting than the scientific model of truth would suggest” (Swinton and Mowat 2006, p. 254). Not only have these research methods enabled theologians to attend to practice as a locus of revelation, but they have also drawn us into significant epistemological reflection, demanding of us skills of reflexivity, humility, positional awareness, and sensitivity to power dynamics (Scharen and Vigen 2011; Graham 2013; Scharen 2015; Bennett et al. 2018). Qualitative research methods have had their own way of tutoring practical theologians, often in virtues consonant with Christian faith practice. Christian Scharen reminds us of this when, building on his study of the highly influential father of modern ethnography Pierre Bourdieu (Scharen 2015), he develops Bourdieu’s comment that interviewing as a qualitative researcher is “a spiritual exercise.” Elaine Graham, too, has drawn attention to certain common epistemological positions shared by practical theologians and action researchers, which call both fields into consideration of what might, in Cas Wepener’s words, be named as the “meta-empirical” (Graham 2013; Wepener 2015). These social science concerns themselves encourage something of a spiritual turn.
1 The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology (Miller-McLemore 2013, pp. 91–265) testifies to a wide spread of theological interest in ethnographic, action research, participatory, case study, and narrative approaches, all drawing on qualitative research practices.
There is, however, a shadow side to this theological investment in qualitative research - a shadow side to which the spiritual turn which is our concern here might been seen as something of a remedy. As Swinton and Mowat discuss at some length, there are distinct differences between theological notions of knowledge (based on divine revelation) and the empirical knowing generated by a social science use of qualitative research (Swinton and Mowat 2006, pp. 73–98); and these authors’ own call for a practical theological engagement with qualitative research characterized by hospitality, conversion (of qualitative research, note), and critical faithfulness (pp. 91–94) continues to raise questions, especially for those who see this as an inappropriate privileging of theology over social science accounts of reality.
As one of the most influential figures in the ethnographic turn in ecclesiology has pointed out, in something of a shift from his own earlier position, the risk now is that too much “ethnographic theology” simply provides ever more detailed accounts of Christian community, whilst failing to make any distinctly theological contribution (Healy 2012). The risk is that the turn to practice, whilst born of a desire for an integration of academic theology and faith practice, actually results in so thorough-going a commitment to qualitative research that what is distinctly theological is all but lost.
It is in response to this that I argue for the spiritual turn in practical theology as a possible remedy for this fracturing of qualitative accounts and theological learning.
A Spiritual Turn in Systematic Theology: Some learning for practical Theology
It might seem odd to turn now to some discussions in systematic theology; the theological turn to qualitative research is, after all, predominantly a practical theological concern. However, my own commitment to a “whole theology” which admits of no fundamental distinction between practical and systematic fields (Watkins 2020, pp. 239–249) encourages me to engage briefly with a certain spiritual turn in systematic theology, which can illumine the intertwined nature of the practical and the spiritual with which I am concerned.
Arguably the most significant figure in making a case for the place of spirituality in systematic theology is Mark McIntosh (McIntosh 1997, 2004). McIntosh argues for including spiritual traditions as essential parts of theology (McIntosh 1997, p. 5). This integrity of the spiritual and theological traditions is in part based on the “concrete historical life” which is fundamental to both theology and spirituality (p. 5), but also on an account of spirituality which emphasizes the “worldliness” of spirituality. Far from the “spiritual” taking us away from the world, it compels us into a closer relation with it, as we recognize God’s agency and active presence in concrete lived realities (p. 6). For McIntosh, supported by the highly developed systematics of Karl Rahner, with its Ignatian sense of “a mysticism of everyday” (pp. 91–101), the spiritual and the practical are integrally bound together in a fundamental theology of how God is with God’s creation.
Given this strong argument for spiritual-practical-theological ar ticulation, the reader of McIntosh might experience some frustration with a certain failure to move beyond what is ultimately a textual exercise in bringing together spirituality and theology, particularly in the earlier volume (McIntosh 1997, pp. 119–145). However, whilst recognizing a real lack of empirical approaches in McIntosh, there remains the necessity of the turn to practice as part and parcel with his integration of spirituality and theology. This is seen in the earlier volume
in the final part’s move to situate the “practice of theology” in a strong ecclesial location (pp. 151–152). This return to the real stuff of shared Christian life and worship is to be informed by a renewed reflection on the Holy Spirit as “matrix for Trinitarian thought” (p. 155). It is this Spirit that is the principle by which life in the Trinity, personal and (necessarily) communal is lived out concretely (pp. 155–157). McIntosh arrives at an ecclesial and so complexly practical point in his integrating of spirituality and theology, in a way which sets the scene for his work on discernment as the most truthful and apt way of theological-spiritual knowing (McIntosh 2004). In discernment, as a necessarily personal-and-communal practice, attending to the Spirit at work in the world, we see the imperative for holding the spiritual and the practical together in theology.
Sarah Coakley’s centering of her systematics on prayer and spiritual practices is also informative (Coakley 2013). She argues compellingly for a théologie totale, in which doctrinal, biblical, and spiritual traditions form one integrated whole with practices on the ground. In an interweaving of sources, Coakley offers an account of Trinity, spoken through the lens of human desire, which requires not only recourse to premodern theologies, but also an account of practices (Coakley 2013, pp. 152–186). Her own spirituality has a central role in this vision of theology. Coakley asserts that it is only through the self-effacement of the theologian in the disciplined practice of contemplative prayer that certain kinds of holistic theological knowing is possible; the rigors of contemplative ascetical practice are seen as essential “without which no epistemic or spiritual deepening can start to occur” (Coakley 2013, p. 19). This contemplative spirituality expresses the distinctly pneumatological emphases of patristic accounts of Trinity, leading Coakley to include fieldwork as a necessary element in her systematics (pp. 152–186): attention to the work of the Holy Spirit among people in practice is essential. The spiritual and the practical turns are presented as belonging together, as a consequence of theology’s fundamental nature as necessarily attentive to divine revelation, and, as a result, called to discernment of the work of the Sprit in the world, past and present.
Coakley’s systematics resonates with many practical theological concerns. The point which I want to emphasize is that here the turn to practice and turn to the spiritual are presented as facets of the single desire to do theology as a reading of the Spirit’s work in the world. This supports my argument that the turn to qualitative research in practical theology calls also for a spiritual turn in this field and its methods.2 However, there are a number of significant criticisms of Coakley, which need also to inform our thinking. In this context two must be noted: the tendency to depict the contemplative theologian in a strangely elitist light, alone capable of an holistic theological knowing; and the undeveloped and unintegrated appeal to fieldwork. Both these points, as ably demonstrated in Linn Marie Tonstad’s critique (Tonstad 2017, pp. 98–121), risk undermining the vision of théologie totale at least from a practical theological perspective. Whilst Coakley’s own spiritual turn illumines the necessity for spiritual practices in the search for an integrated theology, it simultaneously highlights the abiding importance of rigor and reflexivity in relation to qualitative research aspects of such a theology, and calls into question what claims can be appropriately made for spirituality in theology.
2 See also Ashley Cocksworth’s argument for a distinctively Anglican locating of prayer and spiritualty at the heart of theology (Cocksworth 2020, pp. 4–6).
Theological Action Research and the call to a Whole Theology
Some time before I read Coakley’s account of her théologie totale, I began to describe my own theological work as a striving for a “whole theology” (Watkins 2020, pp. 240–247). This was a development in understanding of my theological action research practices (Cameron et al. 2010; Watkins and Shepherd 2014; Watkins 2015, 2018, 2020). When I did discover Coakley’s work I was both struck by certain similarities in our approaches, but also jolted by some significant differences.
Like Coakley, I am committed in theological action research to a whole theology on the basis of a fundamental understanding of theology which is inescapably bound up in the belief that God has revealed Godself through human history, and definitively so in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Like Coakley, it is the reality of belief in the Holy Spirit that characterizes my practical theological research. In my (imperfect and sporadic) personal commitment to a contemplative spirituality, and in the practices within my co- development of theological action research methods, prayer, spirituality, and “conversational virtues” have become increasingly significant (Butler 2020; Watkins 2020, pp. 19–20; see Jackson 2017). Indeed, as Butler makes clear, the theological action research emphasis on attentiveness for discernment, both in the gathering of data, and the participative reflection upon it, can make a case for its being, itself, a kind of spiritual practice (Butler 2020).
However, there are a number of distinctive elements within theological action research that allow any spiritual turn to be construed somewhat differently from either what is found in Coakley or, though less starkly, in McIntosh. First, the spiritual turn of theological action research has arisen inductively. This distinguishes it from the more systematic theological turn to both practice and spirituality, and suggests that there is something already implicitly akin to a spiritual practice going on in theological action research’s use of qualitative methods. Certainly, the inductive identification of the “four voices of theology,” which was arrived at through the ARCS3 team’s reflection on our data was the start of my own recognition of the place of the doctrine of revelation, and specifically pneumatology, in theological action research, which led to a strong sense of discernment, as distinct from analysis, as an appropriate response to data (Watkins 2020, pp. 34–35, 233–235). James Butler’s account of discovering a continuity between explicit prayer practice and the qualitative research practices of theological action research suggests that spirituality is embodied in the research practices themselves (Butler 2020; see also Van Oudtshoorn 2012). Most significantly theological action research, unlike Coakley’s théologie totale, highlights the paramount importance of discernment as a communal practice, rooted in conversations between practitioners, academics, and others. For, whilst there is in our discerning of data a personal call to prayer and attentiveness to the Holy Spirit, there is an essential understanding that such discernment by the individual is preparation for the conversations that must follow. It is in attending to these conversations that we hope to glimpse something of the Spirit’s work. The conversation becomes itself a spiritual practice (Watkins 2020, pp. 239–241).
In theological action research, then, the discovery of the spiritual turn has taken place simultaneously through the exigencies of qualitative research itself, and the thorough and
3 Action Research – Church and Society. See Cameron et al. (2010) and Watkins (2020, pp. 17–25).
