Research Summary: Worldviews education: preventing violent extremism

‘Soft power’ (e.g. educational) approaches to counter and prevent violent extremism increase, internationally. Education for the prevention of violent extremism could benefit from drawing on insights from research on education about diverse religious and non-religious worldviews in Australia. This research indicates that these types of educational initiatives can assist with addressing religious vilification, discrimination and inter-religious tensions, and also with building religious literacy and social inclusion of young people. A critical approach to education about religions can assist young people to identify religions’ ambivalent role in contributing to both cultures of violence and cultures of peace. The researchers make a series of recommendations regarding religion, education and the prevention of violent extremism.

Researchers

Anna Halafoff, Kim Lam & Gary Bouma

Research Institution

Deakin University, Monash University

What is this about?

• How can education help to prevent violent extremism?
• What role can RE play in this?
• Building religious literacy helps to prevent discrimination and tension.
• Religion may contribute both to problems and solutions, and a critical approach to education about religion can help young people to understand this.

What was done?

The researchers reviewed a range of international evidence, including their own findings from a project investigating worldviews education in Victoria, Australia.

Main findings and outputs

• Religious and inter-religious literacy are invaluable skills in an increasingly mobile and interconnected world and should be developed among all students;
• Education about diverse religions, spiritualities and nonreligious worldviews should be included as part of prevention of violent extremism strategies in all government and faith-based schools to increase religious literacy, to reduce misinformation and negative stereotypes about religion, and to promote inter-religious understanding;
• This education should be critical, and highlight religion’s ambivalent role in both creating and perpetuating cultures of direct and structural violence and in peacebuilding;
• Exclusive narratives and ideologies, be they religious or political, which promote one worldview over and above others, are potentially dangerous and can play a role in radicalisation. Students should be made aware of this and critical thinking should be encouraged to question such narratives;
• Teachers need to be trained in not only religious and inter-religious literacy but also in conflict resolution skills to navigate sensitive and difficult discussions pertaining to religion, violence and peacebuilding;
• In contexts such as faith-based schools, education about diverse religions and worldviews can complement existing RI programmes.
• More research needs to be conducted on the benefits and limitations of educational programmes about diverse worldviews.

Relevance to RE

Firstly, the research gives valuable policy emphasis to RE, showing that governments need to take seriously the subject’s contribution to a peaceful and productive society. Secondly, it gives challenges to RE teachers (and teacher educators), including learning to expose and manage the controversial elements of the subject and presenting religions through different lenses and perspectives.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The research findings arise from a broad, varied, detailed data-set. Some of the research focuses on Australia, but the issues are common with other jurisdictions e.g. the UK.

Find out more

Anna Halafoff, Kim Lam & Gary Bouma (2019) Worldviews education: cosmopolitan peacebuilding and preventing violent extremism, Journal of Beliefs & Values, 40:3, 381-395.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2019.1600113

Research Summary: The teaching of religious attitudes towards same-sex relationships in the Religious Studies classroom: An exploration of pupil reflections.

Helena Moore

This document is a summary of a distinction-level Master’s dissertation at the University of Birmingham. The researcher plans to further this research through a Doctoral Research programme at the University of Birmingham, that will enable more exploration of the impact of this area of study on the promotion of British Values, the Equality Act 2010 and the mental wellbeing of pupils within the classroom.

Please note that within the document, the acronym “LGBTQIA+” will be used throughout to demonstrate inclusivity of diverse sexual and gender identities. In addition to this, the phrase “same-sex relationships” will be used throughout rather than the term “homosexuality”. This is to avoid the history of medicalisation/pejorative language towards LGBTQIA+ individuals.

Introduction

Since the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships in England in 1967 (Sexual offences Act, 1967), a series of legal changes have led to same-sex relationships being a mandatory part of the RSE curriculum for secondary schools (DfE, 2019). In addition to this, religious attitudes towards same-sex relationships, including views that condemn these relationships, is a common topic in GCSE RS specifications (AQA, 2017; Edexcel, 2016a; Edexcel, 2016b; Eduqas, 2020; OCR, 2021). Although there is little formal rationale for the inclusion of this topic at GCSE, it can be implied due to the emphasis on diversity of opinion within the indicative content (AQA, 2017; Edexcel, 2016a; Edexcel, 2016b; Eduqas, 2020; OCR, 2021) that the inclusion of this study area could be designed to allow pupils to engage with a variety of perspectives on the issue, challenging stereotypes of religions as hostile to same-sex couples, and potentially fostering positive attitudes towards LGBTQIA+ individuals in line with the Equality Act (2010) and British Values (HM Government, 2011).

However, personal experience teaching these lessons within a diverse Birmingham school led to questions surrounding the effectiveness of these lessons in the proposed aims, and the potential detrimental impact on pupil welfare due to homophobic views that can arise in class. There is a significant amount of research into the phenomena known as “internalised homophobia” (Herek, 1990) and Minority Stress Theory (Barnes and Meyer, 2021), outlining the potential danger of continued exposure to homophobic views on both LGBTQIA+ and heterosexual/cisgender individuals, leading to increased mental health challenges and suicide risk in the former (McDermott, Hughes and Rawlings, 2018; King et al, 2008; WHO, 2004) and increased polarisation and desensitisation to homophobia in the latter (Bail et al, 2018; Soral, Biliewicz and Winiewski, 2018). While useful, this research has so far been limited to the wider topic, working predominantly with adults, and has not yet been expanded to consider the impact on pupils within the RS classroom. Consequently, the MA dissertation aimed to investigate this very important gap in the current research.

Research approach

This research applied a mixed-methods approach, utilising an initial questionnaire distributed amongst three year 9 classes, followed by interviews to allow for greater expansion on ideas. The decision to distribute the questionnaire to whole classes rather than specifically pupils who identified as LGBTQIA+ was based on ethical issues of identification of participants alongside the practical issues of severely limiting the sample size if only a minority of pupils could participate. In addition to this, the research into the impact of homophobic views on individuals outside the LGBTQIA+ community meant that these participants could still provide useful data on the research question. Meanwhile the decision to focus on the year 9 cohort was a purely practical one, based on the fact that these pupils had more recently undertaken a series of lessons on this topic, and so they were considered to be the most likely to provide reliable data for this research.

The lessons were taught with a focus on determining if religions on the whole condemned or supported same-sex relationships as opposed to inviting students to debate their own views on same-sex relationships, with the aim of keeping the lessons as academic as possible, and reducing the conflict with British Values, the Equality Act and the school “No Outsiders” policy. Extensive time was given for discussion around the different scriptural verses in an attempt to seek any “true meaning” there might be from the text, alongside opportunities to hear from LGBTQIA+ individuals of faith in the form of online video resources. When choosing religions to study, focus was given to Christian and Muslim views due to the priority of these in exam specifications, therefore preparing pupils for GCSE study. Please see the detail below for a summary of the scheme of work.

Lesson 1. History of marriage

• Examine different forms of marriage throughout history
• Challenge the assumption that the heterosexual marriage between one man and woman is the way it has always been; that it is “normal”
• Introduce the difficult dilemma of balancing religious and LGBTQIA+ freedoms.

Lesson 2. Christian views on same-sex relationships

• Key teachings rejecting same-sex relationships (Leviticus, Genesis – “be fruitful and multiply”, Natural Law Theory)
• Challenges to these arguments through reinterpretation of Leviticus and the Apocalypse hypothesis/global population. Introduction to testimonies of LGBTQIA+ Christians.

Lesson 3. Muslim views on same-sex relationships

• Key teachings rejecting same-sex relationships from the Qur’an.
• Challenges to these through the nature of Allah as merciful and beneficent, and teachings around judgement e.g. the Hadith of the prostitute and the dog.

Lesson 4. Evaluation of religious views

• Students produced an exam-style evaluation on the topic of whether religions condemn same-sex relationships or not. Pupils had to provide two arguments and decide which was the most convincing/accurate.

Within the questionnaire, students were asked a combination of open, closed and likert-scale style questions where students were asked to rank their opinion along a scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. These questions ranged from ones asking for basic data on gender, sexual orientation and religious affiliation to questions asking for students to summarise their main learning points from the series of lesson, to indicate the learning that stood out to them the most. The majority of the questionnaire however formed a likert scale with the following questions:

1. These lessons added to my understanding of religious views on same-sex relationships.
2. These lessons allowed me to learn views on same-sex relationships from variety of religions.
3. These lessons allowed me to learn how there are disagreements within the religions on the issue of same-sex relationships.
4. In these lessons, views that I would consider homophobic were raised.
5. My religious views were respected in these lessons.
6. My gender/sexual identity was respected in these lessons.
7. I felt safe and comfortable in these lessons.

Overall, 51 pupils from a sample size of 75 agreed to complete the questionnaire. Of the remaining 24, some pupils were absent, while others opted out. Of these 51, 2 pupils then volunteered to take part in follow-up interviews where students were given the opportunity to expand personally on their answers in the questionnaires with the following questions:

1. What were your reasons for volunteering for this interview?
2. There were only two volunteers. What do you think might have held people back from volunteering?
3. These lessons are part of the GCSE content for most exam boards. Do you think it should be taught at GCSE? Why?
4. Do you think it should be taught before GCSE? Why?
5. Do you get to learn about the LGBTQIA+ community in any other lessons at school? How is this similar/different to RS?
6. In these lessons, we will cover views that some people may feel are homophobic. How do you feel about that?
7. If you could give advice to someone teaching this, what would you say? Why?
8. What is going well/what could be improved?

Findings

Overall, the majority of participants (questionnaire and interview) reported positive feelings towards the lessons, claiming that they felt they had gained information about the diversity of religious attitudes to same-sex relationships, challenging stereotypes of religions as homophobic, whilst also feeling that their identities (gender, religious and sexual) were respected in the lessons. This included a small minority of participants who identified as LGBTQIA+ on the questionnaires. Where participants claimed they did not feel that their identities had been respected, this commonly came from participants who identified religious affiliation, with some taking the opportunity to express a desire for more diverse coverage beyond Christianity and Islam, whilst others suggested the exposure to views that were different to their own was upsetting for them, leading to feelings of anger and frustration that lessons were attempting to “twist” what they perceived as the true meaning of their holy texts. While the former reason is a very simple problem to fix, the latter raises more serious concerns for teachers, perhaps demonstrating the need for more intensive diversity education in an attempt to reassure pupils that diversity of opinion is not necessarily a personal attack on faith.

The largest division in opinion however stemmed from the questions surrounding whether homophobic views had been raised in the class. In the case of participants who claimed to experience homophobic views, it was not possible to ascertain from the questionnaire whether they were thinking of the scriptural views or the views of their peers in their answer. This is a clear limitation of the questionnaire, and as the interviews were performed in close proximity to the questionnaires before full data analysis had occurred, it was not possible to delve further into this with the two interviewees. This is an area for improvement in the case of further study on this topic. Regardless of the source, contrasting this with responses mentioned above, it could be seen that the exposure to views perceived as homophobic did not detrimentally affect the pupil wellbeing in these classes as the majority of participants reported their identities were respected in the classroom.

However, it is important to balance this generally positive reception against the more extreme responses within the questionnaire, some of which were mentioned earlier. A small minority of participants (most commonly those who identified as male, heterosexual and Muslim) responded exceptionally negatively to the topic, expressing clear antipathy towards the LGBTQIA+ community, and anger at the inclusion of this topic on the Religious Studies curriculum. Of course it is unreasonable to expect any series of lessons to be successful in every case, and so it is not necessarily a sign of a failing curriculum that these views still exist within the classroom. However such sentiments still raise potential safeguarding concerns for schools, standing in stark contrast to both British Values and the Equality Act 2010. While the pupils within the individual school did not seem to be detrimentally impacted, further research would be needed to see how representative this is of other school settings.

Recommendations

Following on from the research, the main recommendations for teaching staff are thus:

• Intensive work should be done with pupils surrounding British Values and the Equality Act 2010 to attempt to negate some of the most extreme views towards the LGBTQIA+ community.
• Efforts should be taken by schools to give pupils a safe environment to discover LGBTQIA+-inclusive religious views, perhaps through structured inter-faith discussion groups or inviting speakers from different faiths with the aim of pupils perceiving the content as less of a threat, and therefore making them more receptive to the new information.
• Teachers should plan lessons with the aim of avoiding emotional harm to pupils, making it clear where debate is and isn’t allowed, emphasising the importance of following the Equality Act and showing kindness to peers, whilst still learning about diverse opinions.
• Teachers should consider the inclusion of Queer Theology to deepen pupil understanding of diversity of views and to support pupils of faith who may identify as LGBTQIA+, raising awareness of these views. Teachers should also work closely with pupils of faith to build their resilience and empathy when discovering new interpretations of their holy scriptures.
• Teachers should attempt to cover a broad number of responses beyond the Abrahamic faiths, potentially taking a thematic approach as opposed to dividing lessons by religions to weave in more diverse opinions on the topic.

Regarding the research itself, it is clear that this area needs further study to see how widespread the findings are, and also to address some of the shortfalls of this initial project, namely the difficulty delving into the source of homophobia that a number of participants reported experiencing, and the potential impact on individuals. It would also be valuable to compare different teaching methods on this topic. Since the project’s conclusion, the curriculum has been altered in line with the teacher recommendations to develop more detailed Queer Theology and diverse religious approaches, alongside deep discussions about diversity within classes. Further study would make it possible to see the effect (if any) that this change in curriculum has had on pupil experiences of the lessons.

Reference list

AQA (2017) GCSE Religious Studies A. Available at: https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/rs/specifications/AQA-8062-SP-2016.PDF (Accessed: 28th October 2021)

Bail, C. et al (2018) ‘Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization’, PNAS 115 (37), pp. 9216-9221. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9216 (Accessed: 29th October 2021).

Barnes, D. & Meyer, I. (2012) ‘Religious Affiliation, Internalized Homophobia, and Mental Health in Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals’, American journal of orthopsychiatry, 82(4), pp. 505-515. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01185.X

DfE (2019) Relationships, Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019542/Relationships_Education__Relationships_and_Sex_Education__RSE__and_Health_Education.pdf (Accessed 26th October 2021)

Edexcel (2016a) GCSE (9-1) Religious Studies A: Faith and Practices in the 21st century. Available at: https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/GCSE/Religious%20Studies/2016/Specification%20and%20sample%20assessments/Specification-GCSE-L1-L2-Religious-Studies-A-June-2016-Draft-4.pdf (Accessed: 28th October 2021).

Edexcel (2016b) GCSE (9-1) Religious Studies B: Beliefs in Action. Available at: https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/GCSE/Religious%20Studies/2016/Specification%20and%20sample%20assessments/Specification-GCSE-L1-L2-Religious-Studies-B-June-2016-Draft-4.pdf (Accessed: 28th October 2021).

Eduqas (2020) WJEC Eduqas GCSE in Religious Studies. Available at: https://www.eduqas.co.uk/media/wpojjvm0/eduqas-gcse-rs-spec-full-from-2016-e-14-05-2020.pdf (Accessed: 28th October 2021).

Equality Act (2010) Part 2, Chapter 1. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/1 (Accessed: 29th October 2021).

Herek, G. (1990) ‘The context of anti-gay violence: notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism, Journal of Interpersonal violence, 5(3), pp.316-333. doi:10.1177/088626090005003006

HM Government (2011) Prevent Strategy. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf (Accessed 27th October 2021).

King, M., Semlyen, J. and Tai, S. et al (2008) ‘A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self-harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people’, BMC Psychiatry, 8(70), pp.1-17 DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-8-70

McDermott, E., Hughes, E. and Rawlings, V. (2018) ‘The social determinants of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth suicidality in England: a mixed methods study’, Journal of Public Health, 40 (3), PP.244-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdx135

OCR (2021) GCSE (9-1) Specification: Religious Studies. Available at: https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/240547-specification-accredited-gcse-religious-studies-j625.pdf (Accessed: 28th October 2021)

Sexual Offences Act (1967) Chapter 60. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/60/pdfs/ukpga_19670060_en.pdf (Accessed: 21st June 2022).

Soral, W., Bilewicz, M. & Winiewski, M. (2018) ‘Exposure to hate speech increases prejudice through desensitization’, Aggressive Behaviour, 44. pp. 136-146. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ab.21737?saml_referrer (Accessed: 29th October 2021).

Ventriglio, A. et al (2021) ‘Homophobia and mental health: A scourge of modern era’, Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences. 30(52), Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-psychiatric-sciences/article/homophobia-and-mental-health-a-scourge-of-modern-era/59ADC017A34AF0E721A09A4A2099B853?fbclid=IwAR2J4EtYwkVqQ-6c1n70ZDvlrwN0VJMLK-cxxQ2GR5nzq3xIp4czguWE78c (Accessed: 29th October 2021).

WHO (2014) Preventing suicide: a global imperative. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/131056/9789241564779_eng.pdf;jsessionid=B733037890440E8CFBCB60322BA85179?sequence=1 (Accessed: 18th June 2022).

Research Summary: Religion and social cohesion – new research

Often, faith has been seen as belonging to those outside the mainstream, as a security concern and a barrier to cohesion in UK society. There is an evidence gap on different ways in which it contributes to cohesion, hence this research. The research finds that faith groups can indeed support cohesion, in complex ways. Their networks can be a powerful force for the social good in the future.

Researcher

Madeleine Pennington

Research Institution

Theos, for the British Academy and the Faith & Belief Forum

What is this about?

• How has religious faith been understood within UK social or community cohesion policy?
• How could UK social or community cohesion policy take better account of the realities of religion in the contemporary UK?
• What are some different ways in which religious groups contribute positively to social or community cohesion?

What was done?

From October 2019, Theos researchers visited local communities to find out about the positive ways in which religious groups fostered or undermined social cohesion. About 400 people were interviewed, and a number of in-depth case studies were written.

Main findings and outputs

The research findings are wide-ranging (reading the full report, linked below, is strongly recommended). Here are some that have particular RE / R&W relevance:

• Cohesion policy has been shaped by security concerns, that frame faith as a risk factor and as the preserve of ethnic minorities.
• But in the wake of Brexit, this is changing, and there are opportunities for re-assessment.
• Religious membership can provide ‘spiritual capital’, or hope, to people – and it can be a platform for more inclusive public discussion.
• Religious identity needs to be seen as intersecting with other identity factors; feelings of belonging can be present across religious identities.
• The contribution of faith groups to social provision increased greatly during the years of ‘The Big Society’ and ‘Austerity’. A quarter of all UK charity is now faith-based. In the past 10 years, 34% of organisations registering as charities have been faith-based. This trend will increase post-COVID.

Relevance to RE

These findings are relevant in different ways, for example, the ‘intersecting’ nature of religious identity is very relevant to the RE-R&W transition. However, the main focus might be religion’s increased social function as a voluntary services provider. Given this change, subject teaching might focus more on examples of such projects. Case studies are given in the report and teachers could make contact with local groups to organise pupil fieldwork and dialogue.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The research provides broad evidence of religion’s current contribution to UK social cohesion. It is mainly focused on England.

Find out more

Madeleine Pennington, “Cohesive Societies: Faith and Belief. Examining the role of faith and belief in cohesive societies”. July 2020.

The report is available open access at https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publications/cohesive-societies-faith-and-belief/

Research Summary: Human rights and religion in the English secondary RE curriculum

The relationship between religion and human rights is an ambiguous and complex one, but there are academic, moral and political arguments for the inclusion of human rights in religious education (RE). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights advocates education in human rights and the English school curriculum aims to encourage a commitment to human rights. This article examines the arguments for the inclusion of human rights in RE. It explores whether English secondary RE curricula encourage the study of human rights and the link with religion. This is perceived through a post secular context, one which is marked by the continuing presence of religion in the modern world. The article suggests that there are compelling arguments for the inclusion of human rights in RE, but identifies a questionable variability among local agreed syllabi and GCSE specifications which makes RE an inconsistent ally for the national and international human rights education movement.

Researchers

Dr Robert Bowie

Research Institution

Canterbury Christ Church University

What is this about?

This is a policy study of recent changes around the moral and values aims of education in English schooling. It shows the transition from a values vision framed around human rights to one that is framed around British values.

What was done?

The analysis of policy documentation used a triangulation of conceptual frames: Schwartz’s theoretical structure of values, Baxi’s conceptualisation of rights and Lohrenscheit’s notion of learning about and learning for human rights as these.

Main findings and outputs

Governments offer different political conceptions around what the moral formation of children in schools should encourage, in terms of social change or conservation, local or international allegiances, and moral education as state protection or advocacy around protection from the state. Different governments, at different times and facing different situations, come to different conclusions about what values education should encourage or facilitate. Policy change indicates underlying change, inconsistency and uncertainty around the negotiation of national and international values in English schools. It is clear that there has been a significant change of direction in education policy since 2007 driven by PREVENT and fundamental British values and the concerns around international terrorism and cohesion. However much there might be a feeling that the 2016 political events reflect a sudden unexpected change towards nationalism and away from internationalism, education policy was a signpost towards that direction of travel. Whether this marks an abandonment of human rights education, or a new phase of development towards a locally, nationally conceptualized HRE remains to be seen. This need not necessarily be interpreted as a loss of an ideal or indeed an obituary for HRE.

Relevance to RE

RE engages with international dimensions in that religions and belief systems reach beyond national boundaries. The article provokes reflection on the extent to which RE might be focussed on a vision of education that is framed exclusively by national interests or whether there is scope for an internationalist vision of RE.

Generalisability and potential limitations

This is a conceptual study – focussed around policy formation. It charts developments rather than proposes solutions.

Find out more

Bowie, R. (2017) The rise and fall of human rights in English education policy: Inescapable national interests and PREVENT. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 12 (2). pp. 111-122.

http://create.canterbury.ac.uk/15514/#rVylRH5sJ3uxeTwO.99