Abstract
This article explores the importance of âaction researchâ and âparticipatory researchâ (
The emerging discipline of intercultural theology holds great promise, both for the worldwide church and for the renewal of other theological disciplines. It reflects the growing realization that different segments of the Christian community can only develop appropriate contextual theologies and can only grow in their understanding of the Scriptures and of the meaning of the gospel in their context if they engage in a critical and open dialogue with other parts of the worldwide Christian community. Yet, as an emerging field of studies, intercultural theology is in considerable flux with different perspectives and methodological approaches on offer. For the sake of this article, we propose to understand intercultural theology as the discipline which âorchestrates and studies [the theological] conversation between Christian communities from different cultural settings.â (van den Toren 2015:25) In this article, we intend to contribute to the wider discussion concerning the nature and appropriate methodologies of intercultural theology by exploring the value of âaction researchâ (
This article explores the value of
In this article, we will first introduce
Introducing ar and pr
âParticipatory research methods are geared towards planning and conducting the research.â (Bergold and Thomas 2012: para. 1). There is a close relationship between
Both methods have an affinity with so-called âappreciative inquiryâ (
As with all research tools and even broader methodological approaches, the question is not which tool or method is universally better, but rather which approach and which collection of tools is best indicated for a specific research problem and a particular context. In what follows we will therefore consider the value of
In the Science and Religion in French-Speaking Africa project we have used âgroup model buildingâ (Bom forthcoming) and focus groups as the main methods for data-gathering, and discourse analysis as one of the methods of data analysis. When looking at the relationship between
Any account of the given cosmos in a spoken or written word is culturally framed, yet if we approach our inquiry with appropriate critical skills and discipline, our account may provide some perspective on what is universal, and on the knowledge-creating process which frames this account.
Reason and Bradbury 2006:7
This is precisely what allows the intercultural theological conversation not only concerning practices, but also concerning understandings of reality reflected in approaches to the relationship between science and religion. We will return to this below. Within the constraints of the project, we were not able to equally develop the participatory and action research elements of the project in equal depth in view of the intended intercultural dialogue; we therefore placed a stronger stress on the participatory element.
A Theological Rationale for Participatory and Action Research
Our interest in
In the first place, there is no dichotomy between knowing God and living with God, between practical theology and systematic theology (cf. Charry 1999; Farley 1983). This does not mean that one only engages in theological reflection for pragmatic reasons. The desire to know God for who God is, for no other reason than the desire to know, glorify and enjoy God, is a fundamental, and possibly the first, reason for doing theology (Berkhof 1985:13â14; Toren 2014:87â89). There is, however, no systematic theological reflection that does not at the same time have practical ramifications. There is, conversely, no practical theological reflection that does not lead us back to fundamental questions about the nature of God and Godâs relationship to the world. The separation between theological theory and practice is a consequence of the Enlightenment (Farley 1983:65) and does not do justice to traditional Christian understandings of the nature of theology. As Christians and theological educators, we engage in theological reflection because we desire to grow ourselves and help others grow in our knowledge of God and our life with God.
Secondly, the theologian is a member of a (local) community of believers and therefore also of the church universal before he or she is an academic. Theologians cannot claim any kind of monopoly on the knowledge of God nor to have access to a âbetterâ knowledge of God. Healthy theological reflection at the academic level demands a constructive and critical engagement with the life of âordinaryâ people of God, with the experience of the faithful (Mouw 1994; cf. for a non-theological parallel Servaes 1996:82). This does not erase, however, certain distinct characteristics of the knowledge of God and research of theologians. For intercultural theology, local Christians must be recognized as specialists in the area of their culture and the culturally relevant expression of their faith while the interaction with theologians is helpful to express and analyze their contribution to the broader (intercultural) theological reflection â and vice versa (cf. Schreiter 1985:16â20; Munikwa and Hendriks 2011). This general theological consideration underpinning the participatory nature of theological reflection is even more apt in Africa and other non-Western parts of the world, where reflection in general and theological reflection in particular is a communal practice (Munikwa and Hendriks 2011:458â59), a practice which is effectively in line with the New Testament example of theological deliberation in Acts 15 (Hendriks 2003; cf. Bom forthcoming).
Thirdly, a Christian theology can only be truly catholic, if it engages with theological expressions and understandings originating from different parts of the world and different cultural contexts. This is true in principle, but is forced on us with greater clarity in our globalizing world (Walls 2002:3â26; Schreiter 1997).5 Healthy intercultural relationships demand that we deal with others not as research objects, but as partners and most often people that are themselves better equipped to understand their own situation than we are. They are not only dialogue partners in a participatory endeavor, but should be considered experts in the knowledge of the context to which the cross-cultural conversation partner remains an outsider and guest.
Practical Considerations with Specific Reference to âScience and Religion in French-Speaking Africaâ
The Intrinsic Motivation of the Different Partners
If we want to engage in mutual dialogue and true conversation with Christian communities in other parts of the world, we need to engage in research projects that are of mutual interest and therefore are able to produce the energy, commitment and sustained interest needed. Purely âtheoreticalâ interests may be of typically Western academic concern and often a luxury of a limited number of contexts and institutions with well-funded programs. Partners in the Global South will be more intrinsically interested in collaborative and dialogical projects if these projects respond to a clearly recognizable need or interest, such as the proclamation of the Christian message, engagement with social needs or the need to develop contextually appropriate forms of discipleship and healthy forms of leadership. In the course of our research project, it became increasingly clear that one of the crucial factors that made this project run smoothly and helped us in the collection of trustworthy data of a well-selected research population is the high level of interest and motivation in our partner organization, the
It would be dishonest to suggest that our project was a fully equal partnership. As Western researchers, we were in a better position to acquire funding and during the whole project the lionâs share of the funds were managed from the Netherlands. We were only able to have an initial conversation with representatives of the stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa before the project started. We needed to formulate the main research questions and research methodology before we had the funds to dialogue more elaborately with most of the local stakeholders, whom we could only meet during a research trip that was scheduled four months into the three-year project (see for similar challenges Walters and Popplewell 2013). However, the
Envisaging Change
When a researcher or group of researchers engages in his or her research field, the engagement always produces change. This is particularly true of intercultural engagement. This is problematic in classical understandings of research in which âthe relationship between researchers and researched (â¦) is a non-relationship in which the researcher is, as far as possible, neutral or invisible.â (Bergold and Thomas 2012: para. 38) We believe that this potential change due to intercultural engagement does not need to be avoided as a liability of intercultural research that should leave the research population as untouched and unperturbed as possible. This change should rather be recognized, critically used for the good, and welcomed.
Sometimes change is explicitly envisaged. As indicated, this will often be the case in intercultural research because non-Western partners will in most cases be interested in joint projects because of some practical need. In general, theological investigation in the non-Western world is more driven by practical concerns than in the Western world. In the West it can be driven by purely academically-motivated research programs, as is seldom the case in non-Western contexts. As such the project âScience and Religion in French-Speaking Africaâ envisages (1) helping students and academics to be more truthful to the triune God and more relevant to their specific context in their discipleship in a personal calling that embraces both âscientificâ and âreligiousâ interests. It became clear from the research that these domains are not neatly separated for these students and academics, but that they perceive their studies and academic calling as part of a more embracing religious or more specifically Christian calling (Bom and van den Toren 2017). The project also envisages (2) empowering students and academics from French-speaking Africa to share their insights shaped by the particular confluence of cultural and religious influences that has shaped French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa both in their local context and in broader discussions concerning science and faith issues.
We were thus well aware that the African students, academics and student-workers were mainly interested in these topics because they wanted to explore new possibilities of Christian discipleship in the academic context and because they felt the need for critical reflection on the relationship between secular science and Christian faith. This did also include listening to our perspectives as conversation partners and potentially even as mentors, so that they themselves could make up their mind and remain the âagentsâ of the change for which they hoped. We needed to carefully work out how this was going to be woven into the overall project. These interests could have adverse effects on the trustworthiness of our exploration of the existing practices and concerning the role of faith in their academic enterprise. We did, therefore, opt for
Even if one would have mainly theoretical interests, one needs to question whether one can avoid practical intervention in a local situation and whether the effort to avoid all intervention is ethical â even though some would argue that refraining from all intervention would be the most ethical attitude. The researcher always represents a foreign element that will influence the local cultural dynamics. The questioning aimed at understanding raises itself issues that otherwise would have remained dormant. This becomes apparent in the theological interest that Mika Vähäkangas showed in the theology of healing of Rev. Ambilikile Mwasapile, a Lutheran pastor from Tanzania. The questions concerning the theology underpinning the latterâs healing ministry unavoidably led him to clarify his thinking on issues that might hitherto remain implicit (Vähäkangas 2016:273â74). In our own project the invitation to students and academics to take part in
There is a further issue that is related to the role of the investigators. Social scientists and theologians are increasingly aware that the person of the investigator, including his or her history and cultural baggage, is itself a primary âresearch toolâ (Swinton 2012:81). This was evident in our project. The partnership between the research team and the
One also needs to ask whether the desire to leave the research population unchanged is ethical. To put it crudely, research projects in which one wants to disturb the research population as little as possible are more appropriate to the World Wildlife Fund than to the Christian community or to those who share a common humanity. This desire can even be based on a hidden patriarchal presupposition that we know what is good for others and want to protect them from unwanted outside influence. Intercultural theology will need to be more respectful of the interests and agency that the âresearch population,â or rather dialogue partners, might have in the relationship and project.
The Nature of Truth and the Desire for Change
Action research is developed and mostly used in view of practical outcomes. It can therefore have a pragmatic flavor (as exemplified in Conde-Frazier 2012). Action research can therefore easily suggest or align itself with the constructivist epistemology (or a largely constructivist epistemology) characteristic of our postmodern world (see for example Servaes 1996:82; Willms, Arratia, and Makondesa 2004:29). Christian practices are, however, not grounded in themselves, or in the manner in which a community engages with the world and gives itself order and meaning. Christian practices are always responses to the prior reality and work of God who, in Christ, has shown himself to be Redeemer and Lord (Achtemeier 1994; van den Toren 2011:16â18). Theological action research will therefore always want to anchor a growing understanding of Christian praxis in a growing understanding of God. It is grasped within the context of Christian practice, but âUltimately, theological truth-claims rest on Christâs claim âI am the Way, the Truth and the Lifeâ â truth embodied in a person.â (Cameron et al. 2010:17)
Christian theological participatory and action research can therefore not limit itself to a pragmatic focus on change, but will always combine its interest in healing and liberation with a desire to gain a deeper understanding of God and of Godâs project for his world â and therefore of what counts as true healing and liberation â revealed in Jesus Christ. These convictions were in our case shared by our partners and by most of the students and academics involved in the research project (Bom and van den Toren 2017). In our project, the general approach to the question concerned was that looking for a better understanding of the relationship between religion and science was not just a pragmatic interest aimed at improving how they as students and academics might live better lives in their challenging environments, or how they might contribute to the betterment of their communities. They were also interested in doing justice to both the nature of the world and the reality of Godâs salvific purposes in Christ and in understanding the value of both science and faith in understanding these realities as they are and in what they are for us. If as outside researchers, we had worked with a constructivist epistemology, supposing that their convictions are no more than mental constructs that help them cope with their worlds, it would have been much harder to engage in true dialogue. The distance that would need to be bridged would be so significant that there might be little interest in this partnership. Alternatively, if researchers had rather chosen to hide that fundamental difference and simply have adapted to the naïve or critical realism of the conversation partners for the sake of the project, there would have been no true conversation, and the âpartnersâ would have become mere objects of research.
The difficulties of engaging in profound dialogue are of course not unique to researchers who work with a constructivist epistemology. Conversely, a theological researcher who believes that God has revealed himself most clearly in Jesus Christ would need to bridge a much greater distance when conversing with religious believers who believe that the divine is in principle beyond any human comprehension than researchers would who share this basic conviction. The larger the religious, cultural and epistemological gap, the harder it will be to nurture the commitment that allow for encounters and concrete projects in which true dialogue on a deep level is possible. This is one of the reasons why we need more traditional forms of cultural anthropological investigation that do not presuppose an interculturally-shared framework. The point we want to make here is simply that participatory research benefits from a fundamentally shared understanding with regards to the nature of a joint project and that such shared understanding may lead to a depth of dialogue that may otherwise remain beyond reach, either because of the lack of mutual understanding or because of a lack of sustained interest. Furthermore, modern research projects based on a constructivist epistemology and understanding of culture may have some particular difficulties in this respect, because it presupposes an understanding of the (post)modern subject that does not sit well in a number of cultures that are less influenced by modernity in its Western form.6
On a more theoretical note, we need to be aware that every participatory action research project does presuppose some common understanding of what sort of action is worth pursuing, even while maintaining a significant level of openness to what fruitful change and worthwhile action in a particular community and context might look like. In practice, different partners may be pursuing goals that are of a very different nature: one partner may engage in the project because of the pragmatic or financial value of working together, without necessary sharing the âhigher goalsâ of the other partner. It is, however, hard to imagine how such projects can become truly participatory as an expression of a shared seeking of human flourishing. This can only be the case if different partners share compatible understandings of human flourishing and/or if the question what such flourishing looks like is itself an intrinsic part of the intercultural conversation. In many encounters, either secular of interreligious, we are invited âto inquire into what we mean by flourishingâ (Reason and Bradbury 2006:11). There is a strong association between
Footnotes
* Dr. Benno van den Toren, PhD, is Professor of Intercultural Theology and Project Leader of the research project âScience and Religion in French-Speaking Africa,â Protestant Theological University, Groningen, Netherlands. Dr. Klaas Bom, PhD, is Senior Researcher at the same institution and Project Co-Leader of the same project.
References Cited
Achtemeier, P. Mark (1994). âThe Truth of Tradition: Critical Realism in the Thought of Alasdair MacIntyre and TF Torrance.â Scottish Journal of Theology 47, 3:355â374.
Bell, John, Gail Cheney, Cindy Hoots, Elaine Kohrman, Jesse Schubert, Lisa Stidham, and Scott Traynor (2004). âComparative Similarities and Differences between Action Research, Participative Research, and Participatory Action Research.â http://www.arlecchino.org/ildottore/mwsd/group2final-comparison.pdf.
Bergold, Jarg, and Stefan Thomas (2012). âParticipatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion.â Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 13, 1:191â222.
Berkhof, Hendrikus (1985). Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans.
Bom, Klaas L. (forthcoming). âAn Exploration of the Use of Group Model Building for Intercultural Theology.â In Stanislav Grodz and Ulrich Winkler, eds. Shifting Locations â Reshaping Methods. How New Fields of Research in Intercultural Theology and Interreligious Studies Elicit Methodological Extensions. Currents of Encounter. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.
Bom, Klaas L., and Benno van den Toren (2017). âA Contribution to the Debate on Science and Faith by Christian Students from Abidjan.â Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 52:3: 643â662.
Cameron, Helen, Deborah Bhatti, Catherine Duce, James Sweeney, and Clare Watkins (2010). Talking about God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical Theology. London: SCM Press.
Charry, Ellen T. (1999). By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conde-Frazier, Elizabeth (2012). âParticipatory Action Research.â In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology, edited by Bonnie J Miller-McLemore. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell: 234â243.
Cooperrider, David L., Diana Whitney, and Jacqueline M Stavros (2003). Appreciative Inquiry Handbook. Bedford Heights, OH: Lakeshore Publishers.
Denscombe, Martyn (2010). The Good Research Guide: For Small Scale Research Projects. 5th edition. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Donovan, Vincent J. (1985). Christianity Rediscovered: An Epistle from the Masai. London: SCM Press.
Farley, Edward (1983). Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Hendriks, H. Jurgens (2003). âThe Acts 15 Agenda.â Dutch Reformed Theological Journal / Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 44, 3 & 4:287â298.
Klein, Sheri., ed. (2012). Action Research Methods: Plain and Simple. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mouw, Richard J. (1994). Consulting the Faithful: What Christian Intellectuals Can Learn from Popular Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans.
Munikwa, Christopher, and H. Jurgens Hendriks (2011). âThe Binga Outreach: Towards Intercultural Mission in the Reformed Church in Zimbabwe.â Dutch Reformed Theological Journal / Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 52, 3 & 4:453â464.
Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury (2006). âIntroduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration.â In Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, eds. Handbook of Action Research: The Concise Paperback Edition. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE: 1â14.
Roest, Henk de (2015). âThe Focus Group Method in Practical Ecclesiology: Performative Effects and Ecclesiological Rationale.â Ecclesial Practices 2, 2: 235â254.
Rouwette, Etiënne, Inge Bleijenbergh, and Jack Vennix (2016). âGroup Model-Building to Support Public Policy. Addressing a Conflicted Situation in a Problem Neighborhood.â System Research and Behavioral Science 33, 1: 64â78.
Schreiter, Robert J. (1985). Constructing Local Theologies. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Schreiter, Robert J. (1997). The New Catholicity: Theology between the Global and the Local. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Servaes, Jan (1996). âParticipatory Communication (Research) from a Freirian Perspective.â Africa Media Review 10:73â91.
Swinton, John (2012). âWhere Is Your Church? Moving Toward a Hospitable and Sanctified Ethnography.â In Pete Ward, ed. Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethnography. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans: 71â92.
Toren, Benno van den (2011). Christian Apologetics as Cross-Cultural Dialogue. London: T. & T. Clark.
Toren, Benno van den (2014). La doctrine chrétienne dans un monde multiculturel. Carlisle: Langham Global Library.
Toren, Benno van den (2015). âIntercultural Theology as a Three-Way Conversation: Beyond the Western Dominance of Intercultural Theology.â Exchange 44:123â143.
Vähäkangas, Mika (2016). âNegotiating Religious Traditions â Babu Wa Loliondoâs Theology of Healing.â Exchange 45:269â297.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. (2006). âOn the Very Idea of a Theological System: An Essay in Aid of Triangulating Scripture, Church and World.â In A.T.B. McGowan, ed. Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: 125â182.
Walls, Andrew F. (2002). The Cross-Cultural Process in Christian History: Studies in The Transmission and Appropriation of Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Walters, Hettie, and Rowan Popplewell (2013). âOvercoming the Participation Challenge: icco Cooperationâs Experiences of Conducting Action Research.â Praxis Note No. 63. International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC). http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/773/Praxis-Note-63-Overcoming-the-participation-challenge.pdf.
Watkins, Clare, Helen Cameron, Deborah Bhatti, Catherine Duce, and James Sweeney (2012). âEpiphanic Sacramentality: An Example of Practical Theology Revisioning Theological Understanding.â In Christian B. Sharen, ed. Explorations in Ecclesiology and Ethnography. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans: 71â89.
Willms, Dennis G., Maria-Ines Arratia, and Patrick Makondesa (2004). âMalawi Faith Communities Responding to HIV/AIDS: Preliminary Findings of a Knowledge Translation and Participatory-Action Research (PAR) Project.â African Journal of AIDS Research 3, 1:23â32.
A shorter version of this paper was presented at the 14th Assembly of the International Association for Mission Studies, Seoul, Korea, 11â17 August 2017. We are grateful to all those who have commented on earlier versions of this text.
This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton World Charity Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation.
â
âConceptual events are trans-disciplinary, trans-contextual and trans-experiential fora that intentionally nudge persons with different truth perspectives (or paradigms) to construct a shared, ethically compelling framework for understanding the problem and the behavioural and social solution.â (Willms, Arratia, and Makondesa 2004:26).
âTheological Action Research is an approach to research that focuses on enabling practitioners to renew their practices or the meaning they attach to those practices. An outsider team with expertise in research and relevant academic disciplines (sociological and theological) works in partnership with an insider team, who are close to the practice studied. [â¦] Theological Action Research starts with a theological question for research and then uses theological methods to interpret the data; it is thus characterized by being theological âall the way throughâ as well as by its being grounded in particular practices.â (Watkins et al. 2012:73).
Consider for a non-theological parallel the focus on âdemocratic processâ in knowledge production. (Reason and Bradbury 2006:1).
See the central position of âtruthâ (instead of knowledge) in the model built by the students from Abidjan: Bom and van den Toren 2017.
