Theological Action Research: Influence, Impact and Iterations: 30Th/31St October

Theological Action Research: Influence, Impact and Iterations: 30th/31st October

Summary of themes: Session 5

This session invites us to be reflexive about the journey we have taken in this meeting; from the bingo in session 1, through to this final session, in which we have in mind two outcomes; elements of an agenda for ongoing theoretical and practical work to deepen and expand the potential of theological action research; and possible practical steps to support this. We can shape reflection around four themes, drawn from the conversation so far.

One: Standing outside the journey and discerning the next stage

• Jim declined the description of himself, Helen, Clare and Catherine as founders, and preferred to be described as initiators; Helen described how their group wanted to give away what they had shaped, and the sense of receiving it as a gift, to be handed on; Clare spoke of looking for new iterations, a theme of this meeting; and of using the instincts inherent in the approach in other ways.
• The initiating group’s openness to expansion of the approach is notable, and perhaps rare. We have discussed the possibility of a fifth voice, which could perhaps be the world, or personal bias and positioning, or even more voices; of disaggregating the voices; of using the approach and principles in different ways.
• Our varied relationships with theological action research have been described; for some, it’s an influence within a research model; others have spoken of ‘adaptations’, ‘a kind of theological action research’; others have replicated or used the approach fully as set out in the book.
• We have begun to explore connections to, and dialogue with, other significant models.Sturla’s conversation between liberation theology and theological action research highlighted the crucial question of how theological action research can have a critical edge, echoing questions from our first session about whether theological action research has justice clearly as an element.
• So as we reflect on this small journey, and how it brings into focus the larger journey initiating and implementing theological action research since the ARCS team work, what do we see? What is this stage of its development, and what is the next stage? It may help to consider whether there are limits, as we adapt and use the approach; some have mentioned ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ uses. Is there a need for ‘guardians’, or is that a perilous concept, foreign to how this was initiated? And what other connections would help to deepen and clarify theological action research?

Two: The specificity or particularity of theological action research

• This leads to reflection on how to describe the specificity or particularity of theological action research. We have talked about it in ways that reflect a spectrum of understanding; at one end, it’s a tool, a method; at the other, it has inherent theological and methodological assumptions, a worldview, a particular pneumatology, an ecclesiology, and related understandings of tradition, research and other key concepts.
• As academics do, we have to some extent deconstructed key elements; there could be more than four voices; the insider/outsider binary has been questioned and enacted differently, and may not be constitutive. So it’s worth considering what are the elements that constitute its specificity; what ensures it is not just ‘theological icing’ on various cakes? Alongside the key elements described in the book, new themes are coming into view from our experience. The importance of co-ownership of research and its findings, and the contours of ‘hermeneutical spaces’, for example, have been present in our conversations here. And we have identified questions which remain open; about its ‘critical edge’; about its orientation towards change, whether subtle or transformative, in situations where human capacities are deeply wounded or constrained (Sturla’s reformation reflection).

Three: Theological action research and the Academy

• We have recognised some of the questions that theological action research asks of the academy: about the place and voices of practice in theological study and research; about which voices are included or excluded; about other ways of knowing, embedded and bodily knowing; about seeing research texts not just as data but as material for lectiodivina or other personal faith based readings.
• There has also been significant emphasis on the collaborative nature of theological action research, the enrichment of working together across differences, and even the assertionthat it’s not possible to do theological research as a lone researcher, an insight which critiques much academic practice and assumptions. An underlying question here is about the purpose of theological research; whether to serve Christian practices or engage critically with, and extend, Tradition, or indeed both. This should not be a binary – history shows how contexts and experience shape Tradition – but it feels like one.
• A particular set of questions arise in relation to using theological action research in PhD study; what would make it easier to propose and use theological action research within the constraints of doctoral research?
• And there may be questions that the Academy would ask of theological action research; about academic rigour, about how to bring its particular insights into reconstructive work in various fields.

Four: Theological Action Research and the Churches

• Many of us in this group straddle the Academy world and the world of the Churches; we observe the customs of each world; and the tensions involved in connecting them. We could examine this a bit more closely.
• It’s interesting to note that Jonas took the initiative in proposing theological action research to the parish that had operated the transit centre. We have spoken too of how people in churches often don’t understand the purpose of research, or understand it to be about finding answers, solving problems. They may be uncomfortable with the element of risk, of the unknown. Do we need to do some research – in this model – about how churches understand, practice and use research?
• We have also seen the pedagogical potential of this approach. It has immense potential to enable church members to acquire theological literacy and fluency. This is a much needed quality and capacity.
• Does it also have potential to help churches to listen more deeply to excluded and marginalised voices? Its characteristic of inclusiveness is significant in ecclesial terms.
• And we have recognised the debate about our own positionality; perhaps we have become more transparent about the confessional bases from which we do research, and the implications for our practice, and how we inhabit both the academy and the churches. Can we make this narrative, and the practices and personal impact, more transparent? How can we explain more fully how we relate to, use and are enriched by this approach and experience?

Pat Jones

1st November 2017