Changes in Higher Education

Additional Info:
Sexual violence on campus is a major issue facing students, faculty, and administrators, and institutions of higher education are struggling to respond. This forum brings together three responses to the problem, with a focus on the religious studies classroom. The responses move from the institution to the faculty to the classroom, exploring three separate but linked spaces for responding to sexual violence. The first contribution (Graybill) critiques common institutional responses to sexual violence. The second contribution (Minister) advocates for long-term, classroom-based responses to sexual violence and describes a faculty/staff workshop response. The third contribution (Lawrence) emphasizes the classroom, examining the issues that arise when perpetrators of sexual assault are part of the student body. Read together, the pieces offer a comprehensive view of the complicated intersections of sexual violence, the university, and pedagogical issues in religious studies.

Additional Info:
This article looks at policies of the British Government relating to teaching, the curriculum, and research and how they impact Theology and Religious Studies (TRS). It reflects on the use of Government funding to steer research outputs and to focus such activity on a small number of selected institutions. It further discusses Government attempts to define degree standards and "the boundaries and the internal geography" of the subject by producing "benchmarking guidelines" to which each department must adhere. The paper concludes with reflections on the fears of Government control of the curriculum. Underlying much of the discussion is a sense of the differences between Theology and Religious Studies in North America and Britain.

To emphasize the point that this paper expresses personal views based on my own experience I have used a more informal and personal style than is my custom in publications. It is relevant to outline the experience which has fashioned my views. Prior to moving to Liverpool I have held Chairs at Manchester in Comparative Religion, where I also served as Dean of the Faculty of Theology, and London University's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) where I started the Department for the Study of Religion. I have served as President of the national body for the subject, the Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies (AUDTRS) for three years; on the research panels of the two main bodies to which people in Theology and Religious Studies apply for research grants (the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board); on two national research assessment panels and co-chaired the Benchmarking Panel for Theology and Religious Studies (the work of the panels is outlined below). I was a member of a team funded by the Home Office to produce a report to inform Government policy on possible legislation on Religious Discrimination. The relevance of each of these will become clear in the course of the article.

Additional Info:
The paper explores the impact of the change in populations, the impact of electronic communication, and the multiplicity of methodological approaches on the ethos and practices of biblical studies. It proposes a rhetorical emancipatory educational paradigm and explores its possibilities for the professional education of biblical scholars on the doctoral level. Since both college and seminary teachers are shaped in and through their doctoral studies, it is necessary to focus on doctoral education in order to address the growing recognition that the discipline of biblical studies in its present form needs to cultivate transformative intellectuals who are not only at home in the academy but also can critically intervene in the public discourses and uses of the Bible in religious communities, democratic publics, or global inter-religious relations.

Additional Info:
This essay considers Christian theological education in South Asia highlighting pertinent issues in pedagogical content, form, method, and praxis. Debunking the notion of students as "empty bottles" to be filled, and criticizing the top-down model of education, the paper argues that theological education is an ongoing and interactive process in which students and teachers are participants who share and reflect upon each other's faith and socio-cultural experiences. Participants reject, test, negotiate, and choose – while remaining open to the variety that is embodied in different human experiences. The paper stresses the relationship between the theological college and the church and calls for mutual responsibility, respect, and accountability. In an increasingly communal and fundamentalist atmosphere that poses a threat to multi-culturalism, the role of the laity in shaping theological education is highlighted and public debate is encouraged. The paper calls for interactive and dialogic learning. A version of this paper was published in Ministerial Formation 100 (2003): 5–16.

Additional Info:
A panel at the 2016 American Academy of Religion conference staged, taped, transcribed, and edited this conversation about the challenges and opportunities of teaching in a “nano department” – an undergraduate religion or religious studies department (or combined religion and philosophy department) with only one, two, or three faculty members. Two things quickly become evident: one is the impossibility of coverage of the full religious studies curriculum, and the other is the necessity for collaboration with other departments. Neither of these is unique to nano departments, but there exists an intimacy between students and faculty in small departments, a necessary freedom to rethink the place of the study of religion in the liberal arts curriculum, and a disruptive value in what can be critiqued and contributed from a marginalized position. Arguably, nano departments are the canaries in the academic coal mine, charting the future of the humanities that cannot be discerned from the vantage point of Research-1 contexts.

Additional Info:
Hugh Heclo's recent book On Thinking Institutionally (Paradigm Publishers, 2008) analyzes changes that have taken place in the past half century in how North Americans tend to think and act in institutions. The volume is receiving particular attention as it can be applied to higher education and to religious denominations, and so deserves consideration by those who teach in theology and religious studies. At an October 2009 conference, The Wabash Center hosted a lively discussion of Heclo's volume among invited religion and theology scholars, which resulted in the present compilation of four short responses to the book. What was and is clear from these responses is that while Heclo has identified a crucial issue, his analysis and prescription leave important theoretical and practical questions untouched. Indeed part of the energy around the discussion of the book flowed from the ways in which his lack of attention to social class, gender, race, and age circumscribed his ability to robustly describe and diagnose the challenge that gave rise to his book. In order to orient readers to the volume and discussion of it, the "Conversation" begins with a descriptive review of the book.

Additional Info:
This article employs George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's work on metaphor (1980) to examine the current use of the term “learning outcomes” within higher education. It argues that “learning outcomes” is an ontological metaphor (education becomes focused on results that one can understand and measure) that resonates with contemporary academic capitalism. Yet because metaphors highlight some things and conceal others, thinking about teaching and disciplines using “learning outcomes” hides other dimensions of academic capitalism and obscures unquantifiable and highly complex aspects of education. Finally, the article explores ways in which an emphasis upon outcomes has consequences for the field of Religious Studies.

Additional Info:
In this essay the authors posit that interprofessional education is inherently "post-modern"and thus will incorporate educational priorities compatible with postmodernism, and that practical theology is the preferred method for interprofessional teaching and learning when theology and ministry are explicit participants. In advancing this argument they draw upon their experience in team teaching an interprofessional course in pastoral ministry and social work designed for students pursuing a joint degree in these two fields. They provide an overview of the contemporary postmodern context and interprofessional education as an emerging paradigm in higher education, a brief description of the major components of the joint course, and an exposition of appropriate educational priorities.