{"id":4014,"date":"2019-09-13T15:03:23","date_gmt":"2019-09-13T19:03:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/practicalmattersjournal.ecdsdev.org\/?p=4014"},"modified":"2019-09-23T08:03:36","modified_gmt":"2019-09-23T12:03:36","slug":"reflective-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/2019\/09\/13\/reflective-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Reflective Research: A Review of Three Recent Works in Religious Practices and Practical Theology"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Download PDF: RV Moschella, Reflective Research<\/a>
<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Invitation to Research in Practical Theology<\/em>
By Zo\u00eb Bennett, Elaine Graham, Stephen Pattison, and Heather Walton
New York: Routledge, 2018. 194 pages. $140 Hardback; $39.95 Paperback; $39.95 Ebook.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Imitating Christ in Magwi: An Anthropological Theology<\/em>
By Todd Whitmore
London: T&T Clark, 2018. 400 pages. $44.99 Paperback.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Women Leaving Prison: Justice-Seeking Spiritual Support for Female Returning Citizens<\/em>
By Jill Snodgrass
Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2019. 254 pages. $95 Hardback; $90 Ebook.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

New texts in qualitative research in theology and religious\npractice emphasize reflection and reflexivity in methodology, research\npractices, writing, and teaching. They challenge researchers to engage in a\nrigorous level of self-examination and transparency. They also inspire both\ncreativity and collegiality in the course of such challenging work. A recent volume\nfrom the UK plumbs the depths of practical theological research: Invitation to Research in Practical\nTheology, <\/em>by Zo\u00eb Bennett, Elaine Graham, Stephen Pattison, and Heather\nWalton (Routledge, 2018). Other recent works foreground reflective pedagogy and\nfeminist practical theology.[1]<\/a>\nIn terms of exemplary reflective studies, Todd David Whitmore\u2019s Imitating Christ in Magwi: An\nAnthropological Theology <\/em>(T&T Clark, 2018) stands out, not least for\nthe author\u2019s clarity in identifying what he calls his \u201ctheo<\/em>-social location.\u201d Another notable new study is Women Leaving Prison: Justice-Seeking\nSpiritual Support for Female Returning Citizens<\/em>, by Jill Snodgrass\n(Lexington, 2019), a book that uses social science and qualitative research to\nidentify practical guidance for congregations ministering to the growing number\nof women leaving prisons in the US. I will consider each of these contributions,\nin turn, showing how they enhance and enlarge our understanding of the purpose\nand possibilities of reflective research in practical theology. While these\ntexts complicate and challenge the field, they also demonstrate a diversity of\napproaches that meet these challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Invitation to Research in Practical Theology, <\/em>four distinguished\nscholars\u2014Bennett, Graham, Pattison, and Walton\u2014offer a truly collaborative\nvolume that takes readers deep into the journey of research in the field of\npractical theology. Relying on their extensive troves of knowledge in the field\nof practical theology, these authors draw readers into their on-going\nconversation. The authors begin by individually reflecting on the lives, social\nlocations, and scholarly trajectories that brought them to their current views\non research in practical theology. They then set out a list of shared theses,\nstressing the revelatory potential of research undertaken in the here and now.\nThe authors initiate a discussion of reflection and reflexivity in research\nthat challenges simple definitions and assumptions that these practices are\neasily understood or implemented. For example, Stephen Pattison reflects on his\nexperience of researching chronic shame, which he came to define as \u201ctoxic\nunwantedness.\u201d This research led him to the interdisciplinary study of shame\ntheories, therapeutic practices, and Christian theologies of atonement. He also\nhad to come to terms with his own experience of shame.[2]<\/a>\nYet he claims that working through this complexity brought him to a new\nunderstanding of theology and practice (24). The authors augment their\ndiscussion with many such examples from their own work, their students\u2019\nresearch experiences, and the literature of the field. Through these examples,\nreaders gain an appreciation for both the challenge and the wonder of reflexive\nresearch, likened here (as elsewhere) to a journey. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first chapter demonstrates\nhow a researcher\u2019s patient attention to the self\u2014the whole embodied self\u2014cannot\nbe avoided or treated lightly. If a researcher feels uncomfortable, for\nexample, while participating in a ritual practice, this discomfort must be\nexamined lest it results in an unwitting tendency to objectify the other, such\nas by projecting a description of something strange or exotic onto research\npartners. The level of self-reflection that is required\u2014some even engage in the\nmore formal practice of auto-ethnography\u2014may seem daunting, and the discussion\nof this becomes dense at times. Helpfully, the authors also offer lists of\nconcrete questions that give students and other researchers a way into the\npractice of reflexivity. Questions such as, \u201cHow does my personal history\ninfluence my approach to this topic?\u201d and \u201cWhat is my own entanglement in what\nI am trying to understand?\u201d invite readers and researchers to embark on the\njourney of reflexivity (42). The recognition that knowledge production is\nalways a political act underlies the importance of not only reflexivity but\nalso what the authors call connectivity, by which they envision \u201cresearch as a\nspiritual journey towards the \u2018other\u2019\u201d (53). \nResearch in practical theology, the authors assert, \u201cshould be\nparticipatory and dialogical to the core\u201d (51).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chapters 3\u20136 explore the concepts\nof religious practice and performance; communities of practice; and tradition.\nThe discussion of practice is particularly illuminative for understanding the\nways in which theology is instantiated within<\/em>\npractice, both shaping it and being shaped by it. The authors explain how\npractices constitute our lives, how practices both construct and maintain\ncertain social realities that we might otherwise think of as natural, such as\nconcepts of gender. We learn through various culturally embedded practices how\nto define our identities. By engaging in reflection and reflexivity,\nresearchers may find some \u201cdisruptive self-knowledge\u201d to be the historical root\nof taken-for-granted concepts and identities. The authors assert that the lived\nquality of religious practice is value-laden; practices perform certain values\nthat may or may not match professed beliefs. Critical reflection on the\npractice of faith can lead to both new theology and new, potentially more\nfaithful practices. While many points in this discussion are not new, these\nideas are deepened here, especially through vignettes that illustrate researchers\u2019\nstruggles with and intuitions of the limits of reflexivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bennett, Graham, Pattison, and\nWalton explore the notion of \u201ccommunities of practice\u201d that are committed to phronesis <\/em>or practical wisdom in chapter\n4. Such communities may form among researching practitioners, who inhabit both\nacademic and professional spaces and must negotiate resulting complex\nidentities. Although others have noted the need for communities of\naccountability in research,[3]<\/a>\na more robust concept of communities of practice is offered here and is\nexplored in a thorough and candid way. Communities of practice are needed, the\nauthors claim, to encourage critical thinking, which is enhanced through\ndiversity in the community and mutual encouragement to reflexivity (90). The authors\nalso highlight the challenges of collaborative approaches to research: although\ncollaboration adds richness and integrity to the work, it is frankly difficult\nin practice. The varying styles and schedules of colleagues require\nnegotiation, as does the work of discerning meaning and agreeing upon phrasing.\nDespite these challenges, dialogue between authors is a practice that can\ninterrupt closed systems of thought in favor of more open and responsive\nnarratives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a chapter on \u201cFinding a\nCritical Space,\u201d the authors explore the meaning of tradition in research and\nthe researcher\u2019s challenge to find a place to stand in relation to tradition.\nThe authors employ the idea of \u201chome\u201d and all its imaginative associations as\nanalogous to the shifting yet stable weight of tradition: \u201cThe word \u2018home\u2019 here\nindicates several things of importance about our relationship to religious and\nother traditions: recognition, belonging, emotional investment, ambiguity of\nfeeling and of relationship, the dialectic of leave-taking and return. . .\u201d\n(105). A researcher\u2019s journey into a study of religious practice can involve\nall these dynamics. Rich examples from the authors\u2019 own studies are supplied\nhere, illustrating the work of wrestling with tradition that is characteristic\nof research in this field. This wrestling may involve obedience to the past,\nsome kind of organic development of tradition, \u201cresistance, refusal, and\nrevision\u201d of tradition, and\/or \u201ca call from the future\u201d that anticipates a new\nkind of faithful response (117\u2013123).  The\nauthors conclude their discussion of tradition by returning to four provocative\nthemes noted earlier as characterizing research in practical theology: \u201crooted, changed, lost<\/em>, and claimed<\/em>\u201d (129). This chapter highlights\nthe challenge that reflexivity presents to all researchers, that of recognizing\nhow much we are part of the social worlds we study. By engaging in\ntheologically grounded qualitative research, we raise the stakes. The need for\nclarity and transparency about our social and theological locations is\nheightened when we interpret situated faith claims and practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A chapter on method, \u201cFraming the\nview,\u201d plumbs the connections between worldview and research strategies,\nnoting, for example, tensions between feminist scholars and proponents of\nempirical theology (136\u20137). Mundane and practical matters also have an impact\non research design. Bennet et al. note a more recent emphasis on ecclesiology\nas the locus of research, which they find salient. However, the authors assert\nthat \u201cthe divine calling frequently addresses us from unexpected and \u2018unholy\u2019\nplaces beyond the Church as we currently understand it\u201d (147). Bennett and her\ncolleagues also lift up more creative approaches to research, such as\narts-based research, including auto-ethnography and other forms of generating\nknowledge by making something new. As one who has grown weary of evidence-based\napproaches to all things spiritual, I heartily welcome this \u201cpoetic turn,\u201d with\nits emphasis on practice as \u201ccreative\nmaking\u201d <\/em>as a counterbalance to \u201cnotions of useful doing\u201d <\/em>(155). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This rich and thoughtful book\nconcludes with a chapter on research ethics, arguably the most difficult and\nimportant topic for any researcher to consider. Rather than providing a list of\nrules, the authors offer many questions for researchers to ask themselves at\nthe start of and throughout the processes of researching, writing, publishing,\nor in other ways presenting their findings. Reflexivity is again brought into\nfocus, not only in terms of understanding the researcher\u2019s role and influence\non the research but also in terms of understanding the larger socio-cultural\nissues at stake. The authors explore the themes of trust, complexity,\nrelationality, and vulnerability that run through researchers\u2019 efforts to seek\nthe good in and through their work. Questions of costs and benefits, and of\nwhose interests the research serves are pertinent throughout. Social\ninequalities of race, gender, class, and so on must be considered at every\npoint along the journey. Risks to all parties must be considered, including\nrisks to researchers and their families, as well as risks to research partners\nand especially to vulnerable groups. The authors lift up the importance of a\ncommunity of practice at the point of analysis and before publication. They\nrecognize the time and space that such ethical considerations require but note\nthe critical value of this work if research in practical theology is to promote\nindividual and communal flourishing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This book may serve as a handbook\nfor both new and experienced researchers. Indeed, reading it has renewed my\nsense of appreciation for the wonder of the work, despite (or because of?) the\ncritical challenges met along the way. I am left with a sense that clear-eyed\ncompanions are coming along on the journey, pointing out both the pitfalls and\npossibilities of such travel. Reflexive researchers always keep an eye trained\non power dynamics, both within research relationships and in wider cultural and\npolitical spheres. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One\nexample of a reflexive researcher (as described above) is Todd Whitmore, whose\nrecent study, Imitating Christ in Magwi:\nAn Anthropological Theology <\/em>(T & T Clark, 2019) is exemplary. The book\nis the first in a new series, T\n& T Clark Studies in Social Ethics, Ethnography, and Theology. Whitmore, who teaches at Notre\nDame, is both a Catholic moral theologian and an anthropologist. His research\nis with the Acholi people in northern Uganda and South Sudan, who negotiate\nlife in war zones and post-war zones. Whitmore describes himself as someone\nattempting to do theology, which means, for him, to live the Gospel. Thus,\ndivides between systematic and practical theology do not obtain for this\nscholar seeking to understand what it means to imitate Christ. Whitmore\nglimpses mimetic faith in his fieldwork in South Sudan and Uganda, and his\nawareness of it stays with him long after he returns from the field to his life\nas an academic at a prestigious university. Following Bourdieu, Whitmore turns\nhis reflexive lens onto himself in relation to the research field and to the\nacademic habitus that shapes scholars, but he adds a third dimension to such\nreflexivity, that of his theology. Whitmore calls this his theo<\/em>-social location, which he describes as \u201cnot\njust an account of our social location relative to those whom we are studying,\nbut of all of that in relation to God\u201d (15). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whitmore organizes his project\ninto four categories or movements: attention, discernment, commitment, and\nreturn. He begins with attention to the history of the region and to the\nravages of British colonialism and its practices of indirect rule, which trade\non notions of \u201cprimitive\u201d vs. \u201cmodern\u201d people. Such distinctions have become\nexcuses for brutal oppression and violence toward the Acholi people and their\nefforts to resist. Aware of this history and of himself as a white researcher\ncoming into the region, Whitmore learns to tread lightly. Living with a family\nin a refugee camp in Northern Uganda, he learns their ways of communicating and\nthe terms upon which a relationship can be built. He names two\npractices\u2014\u201coriginating hospitality\u201d and \u201capproaching softly\u201d\u2014as key to his\nresearch. Originating hospitality has to do with recognizing the hospitality of\none\u2019s hosts, to whom the researcher is in debt. For the researcher, this\ninvolves recognizing yourself as a stranger in this setting and that, as such,\nyou are also the researched.[4]<\/a>\nApproaching softly has to do with patience in research. When Whitmore realized\nthat his initial interviews were not yielding much in the way of helpful and\nhonest responses, he changed both his tactic and his original research topic.\nHe learned \u201cto go drink the wind,\u201d a translated Acholi phrase meaning \u201cto walk\nabout, to meander, to greet whomever you happen to see, and if asked, to hang\nout a bit with them.\u201d[5]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One night a group of teachers at\nthe Pabbo refugee camp asked Whitmore, \u201cWhat are you going to do for us?\u201d From\nhis fieldnotes, he writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Olum is the macro-theorist among the teachers. To him, it is not a matter of the rebels versus the government. \u201cThe white man gives us guns so that we keep busy killing each other.\u201d The others look away, or take another sip of their mash, but none say anything in disagreement. Perhaps they are uncomfortable because they might lose a potential patron. I have promised to see their school tomorrow before heading to Gulu.  Olum is undaunted. \u201cThen you come and steal our knowledge. You steal our culture.  You come and talk to us about our knowledge and our culture and then take it all back with you. And we have nothing left. Look at us. You see how we live. What are you going to do for us?\u201d (19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Whitmore clearly takes the question to heart; in some ways, it seems to hover over his whole project. Upon asking the people what they needed and being told, \u201ccattle,\u201d Whitmore decided in 2008 to audit a course in non-profit management, train as an ox drover and co-found a small non-profit, PeaceHarvest, that provides livestock and training in agriculture and peacebuilding to the local people (23\u20134). This effort at recompense is only the beginning of Whitmore\u2019s commitment to his research partners; the harder and riskier commitment comes much later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whitmore also pays attention to the religious history of the area, including the history of the Camboni missionaries who first evangelized the region, and who were the forerunners of the Little Sisters of Mary the Immaculate of Gulu, who currently serve the region. Complicated as this history is, the Little Sisters appear to Whitmore as among those who fully embody the Gospel in their willingness to die for the people they serve. Whitmore allows the Sisters to speak for themselves, quoting large portions of their interviews so that readers can be drawn into their mimetic witness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whitmore\u2019s erudite prose is punctuated with vivid passages from his field notes that convey both the wisdom of the people and the atrocities, stark poverty, and political dangers that they face. While the public narrative blames the madman Joseph Kony and his henchmen for all of the killing, raping, and pillaging of the people, Whitmore hears a more complex story from the people. They narrate the moral culpability of the government headed by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, which is supported by Western powers, including the US. Whitmore is challenged to come to terms with what he learns. The people beg him to share their story openly\u2014something they themselves cannot do. Stereotyped as the \u201cbackward\u201d Acholi, they simply do not have the social capital needed to tell their story of the genocidal violence of Museveni\u2019s regime and be believed. Informants pass extensive documentary evidence to Whitmore before he leaves the region, and he must decide what to do with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whitmore asked, \u201cHow is a Western scholar to try to follow Christ in this situation?\u201d (34). After three years of research, and weighing the risks and consequences, in 2010 he published an article describing the atrocities that the Museveni government had committed against the Acholi people.[6]<\/a> The article caused a stir in Ugandan news publications, and Whitmore participated in the conversation, knowing that this would mean he could not safely return to Africa for some years and that this would delay the publication of his book. Other consequences, perhaps unanticipated, included critiques from colleagues and administrators at Notre Dame, who seemed more concerned about the reputation of the institution than about what it means to follow Christ. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whitmore eventually returns to Uganda and Magwi, South Sudan to complete his research, encountering the people\u2019s ancestral spirit world and its syncretistic blend with Christianity. Whitmore suggests that this spirit-filled world is closer to the cultural world of Jesus, and thus might become a bridge to the gospels for those of us in the West. He elaborates upon on his experiences in the field and his return, a difficult transition, during which his learning from<\/em> the field continues. He adds an appendix entitled \u201cFrom Gospel Mimesis to ‘Theology’: How a Discipline Lost Its Senses,\u201d in which he narrates the history of the textualization of culture and its implications for the scholarly discipline of theology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whitmore\u2019s theo<\/em>-social reflexivity, in concert with his extensive knowledge of Catholic moral theology, his historically grounded, multi-year anthropology, and his searching biblical scholarship make this an exceptionally reflective study. Reading it is a stretching and enriching experience, one that poses new questions for researchers and co-religionists alike. If research and writing are understood as the practice of theology, reflexivity then requires such rigorous self-interrogation as well as the plumbing of social and political histories, in the field and the academy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A very different form of reflective research is displayed in Jill Snodgrass\u2019s Women Leaving Prison: Justice-Seeking Spiritual Support for Female Returning Citizens <\/em>(Lexington, 2019). Although her two research studies are smaller in scope and take place closer to home, the author demonstrates an approach to research that is, like Whitmore\u2019s, theologically grounded and motivated. Snodgrass, a pastoral theologian at Loyola University Maryland, considers the situation of mass incarceration in the US and, in particular, the plight of the nearly 700,000 persons per year who, upon leaving prison and reentering life outside, struggle to survive and to avoid re-arrest and re-incarceration. Snodgrass brings a considerable review of social science theory into conversation with her findings from two qualitative studies. In these, her focus was on identifying the lived experiences of female returning citizens as they themselves describe them in the first study and as faith-based mentors report in the second study (see appendices A and B for respective descriptions of these studies). Snodgrass uses a methodology known as interpretive phenomenological analysis.[7]<\/a> She culls from this research, recommendations for a model of ministry that congregations can use in order to support returning women\u2019s successful reentry. The model, dubbed Project Sister Connect, is designed to address the twin goals of justice and care for this population that Snodgrass, after thoughtful reflection on her use of language, decides to call, \u201creturning sisters.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Snodgrass identifies her political and theological positions early in the book. She is in favor of the abolition of the political-industrial complex. She approaches this material as a Christian, believing in the mercy and justice of God. Her analysis is both feminist and intersectional. She begins with attention to the broad issues underlying the incarceration of women in the US. Reviewing the social science literature, she chooses to focus on studies based on a feminist perspective that emphasize distinct pathways to prison in women\u2019s lives.[8]<\/a> Snodgrass notes that many incarcerated women are multiply marginalized by social factors including race and ethnicity; experiences of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse; substance abuse disorders; mental illness; poverty; and the challenges of motherhood. She notes that these \u201cintersecting social locations and experiences ensnare them in a web of structural injustices, [which] contribute directly to their pathways to crime\u201d (25). Snodgrass shows how combinations of these factors constitute distinct pathways to prison. For example, one pathway termed \u201cbattered women\u201d involves women who engage in criminal behavior as a result of or in retaliation against abusive partners (26). Snodgrass also delineates the differences in the kinds of crimes women most frequently commit, often drug-related or minor property crimes as opposed to violent crimes, and shows how these are largely related to macro-level injustices and experiences of victimization. She stresses the need for political and advocacy work to challenge the macro-level injustices, including racism and culturally sanctioned violence against women. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With this background, Snodgrass describes the religious and spiritual landscape of life inside women\u2019s prisons, tracing the historical roots of religion in the US prison system. She then highlights passages from her interviews with nineteen returning sisters. The sisters describe their religious practices and spiritual lives in prison, which are complex and varied. Analyzing her interviews, she identifies four superordinate themes in these women\u2019s accounts: God\u2019s role in incarceration<\/em> (39), whereby God is understood to \u201csit down\u201d a woman in prison in order to get her attention and possibly get her to change her life; the benefits of faith behind bars <\/em>(40), whereby participants describe the helpfulness of religious programs, ranging from a feeling of calm and peacefulness to a way to stay out of trouble; corporate and individual faith practices <\/em>(42), which involve things like worship but also private prayer, Bible-reading, or the reading of the Moorish Science Temple of America\u2019s divine principles; and the role of relationship in faith behind bars <\/em>(47), <\/em>which includes relationships to chaplains and outside visitors, as well as inside sisters\u2019 relationships to each other. This comprehensive account helps readers understand the complex backgrounds that provide pathways to prison and the ways in which religious and\/or spiritual practices may be a part of the women’s lives while they are incarcerated and as they move toward reentry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chapter 2 depicts the experience of\nrelease from prison, highlighting the many barriers to reentry that women\ntypically face. Barriers to housing and employment are often steep and present\nimmediate practical concerns. If a woman has nowhere to go and is forced to\nreturn to an abusive home, old patterns, including those of intimate partner\nabuse, may re-emerge. The barriers to reintegrating with family also include\nthe challenge of reconnecting with children who have grown and changed in the\nintervening months or years and the legal burdens involved in regaining\ncustody. Medical issues such as diabetes, asthma, and HIV\/AIDS, especially if\nuntreated during incarceration due to the lack of availability of medical\nservices or the poor quality of health care afforded to prisoners, can often\npresent significant problems (66). Mental health disorders and substance-use\nissues also frequently spike in the context of the stress of transition. Snodgrass\nenumerates the barriers to satisfying parole conditions, which might require a\nwoman to find a job within a very short period of time. This, too, causes\nstress, especially when the stigma against ex-convicts is so pronounced and\nfrequently prevents their hiring. In interviews, returning sisters explain how\nhard it is to come home, how overwhelming all of these barriers to reentry can\nbe. Snodgrass also cites excerpts from her interviews with faith-based mentors\ntrying to assist returning sisters. They, too, attest to the challenges and\nalso help delineate the factors that support successful reentry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Snodgrass summarizes: \u201cReturning\ncitizens need a network of support comprised of caring individuals that can\nhelp them overcome the barriers of reentry and become an integrated member of\ncommunity in a way that many of them have not experienced before\u201d (94). She\ngoes on to describe returning sisters\u2019 \u201cfaith beyond bars,\u201d which is often\ncharacterized by a search for a church home, and a need for mentors and\ncaregivers who will stay in close touch and offer practical, moral, and\nspiritual support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In light of this, Snodgrass crafts\na well-informed, gender-specific program for reentry ministry: Project Sister Connect. This project is \u201cgrounded in practices of\nradical acceptance, connection, and righteous indignation in the face of\nstructural injustices, as exemplified in the ministry of Jesus\u201d (141). This\ncongregation-based approach combines a partnership model of direct service to\nreturning women citizens before, during, and after their release, with a guide\nto political activism needed to challenge and change unjust aspects of the\nsystem. It is designed to involve a 6-member team or \u201csisterhood\u201d for returning\nsisters who want spiritual support, though there is no requirement of any\nprofession of faith. This circle of justice-seeking support is designed to\nclosely accompany returning sisters, utilizing best practices identified\nthrough this research. Sponsoring congregations supply financial and spiritual\nsupport for the work of the sisterhoods. Evaluation is built into the project\nso that the needs of the particular returning citizens in differing groups and\nlocations can be met. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This a wide-ranging study of the holistic needs of women leaving\nprison. By listening attentively to the stories of the sisters themselves and those\nof their mentors, and reflecting on the themes and insights that emerge from\nher analysis, Jill Snodgrass arrives at a sense of the breadth and depth of care\nthat returning sisters require. Snodgrass brings her practical wisdom to bear\non a creative program design for ministry that involves both sensitive support\nand justice-oriented work for structural change with an often-forgotten\npopulation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Snodgrass does not describe her practices of reflexivity in great detail, she does include summaries of her research plans and procedures. She explains her member check processes, whereby study participants could review summaries of their interviews and offer feedback, corrections, and so on. The researcher also used a process called bracketing whereby she wrote memos after each interview attempting to identify \u201cvested interests, personal experience, cultural factors, assumptions, and hunches that could influence\u201d her analysis of the data and added more comments to the memos after analyzing her transcripts (178). I think that these studies can be deemed participatory and dialogical. Perhaps more importantly, the author is open about her theological commitment to justice, and her goal of using research to improve the plight of returning female citizens.  Thus, Snodgrass fulfills the constructive task of pastoral theology as a discipline \u201cgrowing out of the exercise of caring relationships.\u201d[9]<\/a> The author models the kind of critical reflection on practice that Zo\u00eb Bennett et al. require, especially in her research choices and in her commitment to the well-being of her research partners. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These three contributions to the literature lift up the possibilities and promise of theologically-rooted research projects and research-rooted theologies-in-practice. Research in practical theology can serve many aims, including but not limited to informing and improving the ministries of local congregations in an age of mass incarceration. Anthropological theology challenges us to look more deeply into political situations that we might otherwise choose to ignore and to re-imagine practices of mimetic faith. Arts-based research can re-inspire us, spurring the creation of the good, making a way toward the love and mercy of G-d. These three volumes encourage further reflection on the range of purposes, methods, theologies, theories, and practices researchers employ. The complexity of such research projects may seem staggering, yet the challenge of reflexive research is one that spurs us on in the quest to understand human life and, in particular, religious life, more deeply. Reflexive research can motivate us to grow in self-understanding even as we strive to live out our values in and through our work. These volumes demonstrate both the need for more reflective theologically based research projects and a variety of approaches to this challenge and offer clarity about the purposes such projects can serve. These authors model ways of practicing one\u2019s faith in and through relationships formed in fieldwork and back home in academic and ecclesial communities. These books thus contribute to the interdisciplinary and international conversations needed to increase our common trove of practical wisdom in the conduct of truly reflective research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Feature Image by Janko Ferli\u010d<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/em>.<\/a>
<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Notes<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> See Mary Clark Moschella and Susan Willhauck, eds. Qualitative Research in Theological Education<\/em> (London: SCM, 2018); and Nicola Slee, Fran Porter, and Anne Phillips, eds. Researching Female Faith <\/em>(New York: Routledge, 2018), respectively. These books are beyond the scope of this article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Stephen S. Pattison, Shame: Theory, Therapy, <\/em>Theology (United\nKingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2000). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> See Mary Clark Moschella, Ethnography as a Pastoral Practice: An\nIntroduction <\/em>(Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2008), 108\u2013109. Institutional Review\nBoards offer one form of accountability, but ethical questions arise in the\nmidst of research that require explicitly theological<\/em>\nreflection and discussion. See Elaine Graham and Dawn Llewellyn, \u201cPromoting the\nGood: Ethical and Methodological Considerations in Practical Theological\nResearch\u201d in Qualitative Research in\nTheological Education<\/em>, Moschella and Willhauck, eds., 39\u201359. Theological\nAction Research, with its use of advisory groups, also offers structures of\naccountability. See Helen Cameron, Deborah Bhatti, Catherine Duce, James\nSweeney, and Clare Watkins, Talking About\nGod in Practice <\/em>(London: SCM, 2010). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> These reflections are found in:\nTodd David Whitmore, \u201cThe Askesis <\/em>of\nFieldwork: Practices for a Way of Inquiry, a Way of Life,\u201d in Qualitative Research in Theological\nEducation, <\/em>Moschella and Willhauck, eds., 76\u201399. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Ibid., 88.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> A version of this article is\nreprinted in chapter 7 of Whitmore\u2019s book.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Jonathan A. Smith, Paul Flowers,\nand Michael Larkin, Interpretive\nTheological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research <\/em>(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,\n2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Stacy L. Mallicoat, Woman and Crime: A Text\/Reader <\/em>(2nd<\/sup>\ned.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> This language comes from the\nMission Statement of The Journal of\nPastoral Theology<\/em>, Taylor & Francis Online; see https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/action\/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=ypat20<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Download PDF: RV Moschella, Reflective Research Invitation to Research in Practical TheologyBy Zo\u00eb Bennett, Elaine Graham, Stephen Pattison, and Heather WaltonNew York: Routledge, 2018. 194 pages. $140 Hardback; $39.95 Paperback; $39.95 Ebook. Imitating Christ in Magwi: An Anthropological TheologyBy Todd<\/p>\n

Continue Reading<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":4017,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[699,16],"tags":[456,328,708,467],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/janko-ferlic-specialdaddy-sfL_QOnmy00-unsplash.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4014"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4014"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4014\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4048,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4014\/revisions\/4048"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4017"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}