Viewing archives for Non-religious worldviews

Research Summary

Jacomijn van der Kooij and colleagues provide a clear and concise definition of worldview, for use in RE curriculum development and pedagogy.

Researchers

Jacomijn van der Kooij, Doret de Ruyter and Siebren Miedema

Research Institution

VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

What is this about?

Whilst the original article is about what worldview means in relation to RE, and is a very interesting and detailed read, the summary below under Main findings and outputs should give curriculum developers and teachers at least a start and a framework for getting to grips with the issue – and you can follow up the link to the original article if you have library access and want the wider context.

What was done?

The researchers looked over literature on worldview and distilled some principles for curriculum and pedagogy in RE, as summarised in the Main findings and outputs section.

Main findings and outputs

1. Every religion’s a worldview, but not all worldviews are religious, because they don’t all recognise the existence of the transcendent.
2. There are organised and personal worldviews; organised are systemic, whereas personal can be developed through a bricoleur approach, taking elements from different sources.
3. Worldviews aren’t just views on life, the world and humanity. More is needed. Membership of a political party, for instance, isn’t a worldview.
4. There are four conditions – having views on matters of ultimate concern, including ontological, cosmological, theological, teleological, eschatological, and ethical notions; these views must influence thinking and acting; a worldview has moral values related to understanding of the good life and the well-being of other people; a worldview gives meaning in a person’s life, and on the meaning of life, or an understanding of the purpose of human beings in general.
5. So, an organised worldview is one that has developed over time as a coherent and established system. It has sources, traditions, values, rituals, ideals, or dogmas, and a group of believers.
6. But a personal worldview can be held without being articulated. Somebody’s answers to existential questions may not be clear-cut, the person may be continuing to reflect. If somebody’s moral values are what give meaning to him or her, these can constitute a personal worldview, though people can have personal worldviews in the absence of moral values: aesthetic or other ones may be central. A personal worldview can be based on a meaning in life or can be one where a belief in pointlessness replaces this; it must affect thoughts and actions to qualify as a worldview, though other practical factors may also affect the person’s decisions.
7. RE shouldn’t only focus on religions as organised systems, but also on differences between people who identify with the systems, and how the personal worldviews of pupil or their parents are developing. Depending on the school, pupils’ worldviews might be expected to be developing in relation to one organised worldview (‘learning in religion’) or several (‘learning from religion’).

Relevance to RE

Curriculum developers and teachers need a clear concept of worldview, as applied to RE, in order to consider what to include in the curriculum and how to approach it in the classroom.

Generalisability and potential limitations

This isn’t the only way in which the concept of worldview has been understood, but it was developed with RE in mind, is widely cited, and may well be of good use.

Find out more

Jacomijn C. van der Kooij , Doret J. de Ruyter and Siebren Miedema, “‘Worldview’: the Meaning of the Concept and the Impact on Religious Education,” Religious Education, 108 (2) (2013): 210-228.

Research Summary

The research is a case study of the Faith and Belief Forum’s School Linking programme, in the light of the proposed move towards a religion and worldviews curriculum in England. Through analysis of a large quantitative and qualitative data set, it emerged that though pupils report knowledge increases from participation in the programme, the type of knowledge gained does not accurately capture the religious and worldview plurality of the programme’s participants. The author finds that the weakness is due to the intergroup contact theory of the programme, and that a different type of contact theory, decategorisation, would offer improved pupil learning in future and be more compatible with a worldviews approach.

Researchers

Lucy Peacock

Research Institution

Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry University

What is this about?

What are the implications of a move to a Religion and Worldviews curriculum for contact-based interfaith programmes in schools? What type of knowledge do pupils get from these programmes, and is it sufficient to convey the complexity of religious and non-religious worldviews?

What was done?

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through 1,488 teacher and student surveys, teacher focus groups and participant observation in schools. 52 classes from 45 English schools were involved, of different religious characters. There were baseline and endpoint surveys (before and after participation in School Linking), pupil reflection forms; and participant observation and focus groups to assess how School Linking promotes peaceful relations.

Main findings and outputs

• Pupils reported learning more and more about the faiths and beliefs of their linked school, and feeling more and more confident to work with their peers there.
• But when they were asked to provide examples, these tended to be based on oversimplified or inaccurate ‘facts’.
• The language that the teachers used contributed to the problem, because it often homogenised groups. It appeared to draw from the perceived demands of RE teaching, reflecting current curriculum frameworks and examination demands.
• So exchanging individualised information (‘decategorisation’) would be better than assuming that individuals simply represent groups such as Muslims or Jews (‘secondary transfer’). Perceptions of group homogeneity should be actively questioned in the process. Interfaith programmes need to interact with the changing RE / R&W landscape.

Relevance to RE

The research probably has more relevance to RE / R&W than the article itself suggests. The article concludes that a different model is needed for interfaith programmes in schools, and that this model is in step with RE / R&W. However, the decategorisation model proposed might inform not only interfaith programmes but, in turn, all RE / R&W practice based on direct dialogue and encounter; so could be considered by teachers in relation to discussions taking place within their own classes, or during visits to faith or non-religious worldview communities. The findings of the research are useful to consider whilst planning curriculum around point 9 of the CORE national entitlement, specifically the part on direct encounter and discussion with individuals and communities.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The samples are fairly large. The research combines quantitative with qualitative approaches carefully. The data are analysed thoroughly and the analysis coheres with general themes of religion and worldview plurality and other sources on religion and worldview complexity.

Find out more

The original article is:
Lucy Peacock (2021) Contact-based interfaith programmes in schools and the changing religious education landscape: negotiating a worldviews curriculum, Journal of Beliefs & Values, DOI: 10.1080/13617672.2021.2004708

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2021.2004708

Research Summary

‘No religion’ is on the rise in many countries. But how is this taking place? Some studies show that changes during adulthood are less important than inter-generational non-religious transmission or failure of religious transmission. E.g. Woodhead (2017) reports that 45% of those children raised Christian become non-religious, but 95% of those raised non-religious stay so. So, how do various influences (family, school, peer, others) join in determining children’s non-religious identities? The research shows different processes at work. In families, there are both active non-religious upbringing and implicit expressions of non-religiousness. In school RE and assembly, children’s unremarked non-religiousness becomes marked. Yet the processes are not passive. Children exercise agency over them.

Researcher

Anna Strhan and Rachael Shillitoe

Research Institution

The Stickiness of non-religion

What is this about?

• What are the different ways in which children are brought up as non-religious – or come to understand themselves to be non-religious?
• How does family life shape this?
• How do school experiences contribute?
• What is the role of children’s own agency?

What was done?

Ethnographic studies were made in three English primary schools, lasting 6-7 weeks each and combining participant observation. paired interviews with children who had answered ‘no’ or ‘not sure’ to a worksheet question ‘do you believe in God?’, plus interviews with parents and teachers. The schools were in different kinds of location: inner city ‘high nones’, NW ‘Bible Belt’ and suburban.

Main findings and outputs

• Religion is rarely mentioned at home or with friends; it comes up in school assembly or RE.
• Many children don’t know whether their parents are religious and refer instead to grandparents.
• Sometimes a lack of home religious practice becomes a marker of children’s non-religious identity. However, parents too are often unaware of their children’s religious or non-religious identity.
• Lack of family discussion of religion is a factor in transmission of non-religion – it makes religion marginal in respondents’ culture – but this contrasts with school, where in RE and assemblies religion is discussed frequently.
• In RE, teaching is modelled on a religious / non-religious binary, but children sometimes resist it. They express hybrid worldviews drawing on science and religion. But sometimes the binary is reinforced, when, for instance, they cannot write prayers.
• Children say that as they get older, their ability to make these decisions increases, and that this individual choice is important to them.
• Non-religion is dissimilar to any form of organised religion. It rejects its elements but also its type of element (authoritative scripture, person, or authority in general).

Relevance to RE

The research findings may relate to RE / R&W practice in different ways. First, by showing that the subject ought give more attention to processes of religious and non-religious transmission, in curriculum development. For example, Big Ideas 1 and 3 (Continuity, Change and Diversity and The Good Life) touch on without really developing it. Second, by illustrating how what’s studied in RE / R&W is not separate from who studies it: the RE lessons covered in the research themselves form part of the children’s non-religious socialisation. Third, the research shows that the 7-13 age range may be a long phase of identity-shaping for children, meaning that KS2 / KS3 curriculum and pedagogy should respond by offering plenty of space for reflection on meaning.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The study is of three schools and a fairly large number of children (30 to 40 per school); with parents of 15 children per school, and 4 teachers per school. Schools were carefully selected to reflect various populations. The findings are drawn carefully and the research set within a broader range of studies.

Find out more

Anna Strhan and Rachael Shillitoe, The Stickiness of Non-Religion? Intergenerational Transmission and the Formation of NonReligious Identities in Childhood. Sociology (2019) 53(6) 1094–1110. See also Linda Woodhead, The rise of ‘no religion’: Towards an explanation. Sociology of Religion (2017) 78(3) 247–262.

The article is online at https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519855307

Research Summary

This project presents 5 case studies exploring how RE is being re-imagined in schools. It is a showcase of classroom practice which goes some way towards meeting the learning proposed in the new National Entitlement for Religion & Worldviews.
The project builds on the recommendations of the Faiths Unit’s 2015 report RE for Real – The Future of Teaching and Learning about Religion & Belief by providing examples of an emerging shift in RE towards understanding religion and worldviews as dynamic, lived, and interpretable phenomena and concepts.

Researchers

Dr Martha Shaw & Prof Adam Dinham

Research Institution

London South Bank University & Goldsmiths, University of London

What is this about?

This project is based on the premise that there is much brilliant, innovative RE going on all around the country but that it is patchy and could be extended. This project highlights some key examples of innovative practice, which speaks to the new direction proposed for Religion & Worldviews. It is intended to complement debates about change in policy and practice, with evidence of existing new practices from which others can learn.

What was done?

The project has worked with 5 schools to explore examples in practice of aspects of the new National Entitlement. We invited submissions of interest to participate then undertook a series of visits to the schools, in close collaboration with teachers:

Visit 1: Summer Term 2019 (May-June), to discuss the national plan and how the school is already or might respond to it. We worked together during and following this visit to consolidate the potential connections to at least one element of the national entitlement, then to devise a piece of concrete classroom practice in advance of our return visit.

Visit 2: Autumn Term 2019 and Spring term 2020 (September-February), to observe and reflect on the example of teaching and learning which has been identified and developed. The example was developed into a ‘case study’ including a short video and PDF providing a narrative.

Main findings and outputs

The five case studies explore ways of teaching and learning about religion and worldviews as fluid, lived and interpretable phenomena. The focus of each case study is different and relate to:
– Dealing with Controversy
– Multiple interpretations of lived religion
– Whole school lived religion as meaning making
– Encountering worldviews as lived and fluid
– RE Trail as discovery for children and their parents
The case studies can be found here.

Relevance to RE

The case studies are offered as resource for teachers to explore new ways of approaching the study of religion and worldviews in the classroom. Teachers might use these as inspiration to try something new. Teacher educators might also use these as examples of ways to embrace the teaching of religion and worldviews as dynamic, lived and interpretable phenomena and concepts. These examples showcase ways of promoting religion & worldview literacy in the classroom.

Generalisability and potential limitations

These examples are not representative of all the creative and innovative practice that goes on. Neither do they embody the totality of the vision outlined by CORE. Rather, they are intended as examples of some of the exciting ways in which teachers are interpreting innovation in the Religion & Worldviews classroom.

Find out more

Shaw, M (2019) Towards a Religiously Literate curriculum – Religion and Worldview Literacy as an Educational Model, Journal of Beliefs & Values, Journal of Beliefs & Values. Online: Sept. 2019.

https://www.gold.ac.uk/faithsunit/current-projects/reforreal/case-studies/

Research Summary

“Over the centuries, the relationship between science and religion has ranged from conflict and hostility to harmony and collaboration, while various thinkers have argued that the two concepts are inherently at odds and entirely separate. But much recent research and discussion on these issues has taken place in a Western context, primarily through a Christian lens. To better understand the ways in which science relates to religion around the world, Pew Research Center engaged a small group of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists to talk about their perspectives. These one-on-one, in-depth interviews took place in Malaysia and Singapore – two Southeast Asian nations that have made sizable investments in scientific research and development in recent years and that are home to religiously diverse populations.”

Researchers

Courtney Johnson, Cary Lynne Thigpen & Cary Funk

Research Institution

Pew Research Center, Washington DC

What is this about?

• What is the relationship between religion and science – or, more precisely, what are some of the relationships between religion and science?
• What do Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists think about how religion and science relate to one another?
• How are these questions answered within the particular contexts of Malaysia and Singapore, where investment in scientific research and religious diversity are both high?

What was done?

72 individual interviews with Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists were conducted in Malaysia and Singapore between June 17, 2019 and August 8, 2019. This included 24 people in each of the three religious groups, with an equal number in each country. All interviewees said their religion was “very” or “somewhat” important to their lives, but they varied in terms of age, gender, profession and education level.

Main findings and outputs

• There is no single, universally held view of the relationship between science and religion.
• But there are some common patterns and themes within each of the three religious groups.
• Many Muslims expressed the view that Islam and science are basically compatible, acknowledging some differences – such as the theory of evolution conflicting with religious beliefs about the origins and development of human life on Earth.
• Hindus tended to differ from Muslims, describing science and religion as overlapping spheres. As with Muslims, many Hindus maintained that their religion contains elements of science, and that Hinduism long ago identified concepts that were later illuminated by science; many Hindus said that the theory of evolution is encompassed in their religious teachings.
• Buddhists generally described religion and science as two separate spheres. Several talked about their religion as offering guidance on how to live a moral life, while describing science as observable phenomena. Often, they named no areas of scientific research that concerned them for religious reasons. Nor did Buddhists see the theory of evolution as conflicting with their religion.

Relevance to RE

• The data can be used as resources in religion and science topics. The article whose headlines are reported here needs to be viewed in full – it’s detailed, beautifully illustrated and contains much of potential classroom use, e.g. illustrative quotations and statistical tables.
• The interview respondents express personal worldviews. Their words show how their organised worldview membership (Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism) combines with other elements (influence from or attitude towards science). In this way, the material from the article can be used for Religion and Worldviews teaching. It helps to show what Religion and Worldviews teaching could look like.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The researchers recognise the limits of a series of interviews with individuals, and therefore don’t claim that the individuals represent the traditions. Again, however, see the full article. What they do to address the problem is include statistics from other Pew Center global surveys, so you can check the individual accounts with the bigger picture. Overall, it’s an excellent resource.

Find out more

On the Intersection of Science and Religion, Pew Research Center, published August 2020 (see link for open access below)

https://www.pewforum.org/essay/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/

Research Summary

Religion has played a key role in reading instruction in many education systems, but this has been challenged by increasing religious diversity and the spread of non-religious worldviews. There is growing interest in the role of disciplinary literacy in education (i.e. the ways in which a discipline’s knowledge is created, shared and evaluated), and the role of the reader.

This research focuses on how adolescents experience reading in religious education (RE). It shows that they relate meaning-making in RE to developing respect and tolerance; that whilst teachers focus on conceptual understanding, students request a focus
on lived religion; and that student meaning-making in RE thrives in a learner-active setting.

Researchers

Lars Unstad & Henning Fjørtoft

Research Institution

Department of Teacher Education, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

What is this about?

• Disciplinary learning in RE.
• What adolescent students value in RE.
• How adolescent students experience learning in RE.
• Differences between teachers’ and students’ perspectives on students’ learning in RE.

What was done?

A series of RE lessons was observed, across three Norwegian secondary schools. The observations were followed up by group interviews with pupils and individual interviews with teachers.

Main findings and outputs

The study resulted in three main findings.

• Firstly, for the students, meaning-making in reading in RE is closely related to the purpose of developing respect and tolerance.
• Secondly, there was a discrepancy in the view of reading to learn in RE. While the teachers understood learning in RE as developing conceptual understanding based on representations of religion in textbooks, the students underlined the role of lived experience, and encounters with sites of worship and representatives from various religions, to build background knowledge.
• Thirdly, students reported that meaning-making in RE was negatively influenced by a transmission-style pedagogy and suggested that exploratory and inquiry-oriented styles of teaching would be more productive.

In general, students are able to value knowledge in RE as useful in developing respect and tolerance. Greater awareness of the many academic traditions that inform RE could provide the students with disciplinary relevant strategies. They need to attend to differences between insider and outsider perspectives, using contextual and interpretive approaches to learning.

Relevance to RE

The research is useful at policy and pedagogical levels. In policy terms, it echoes other findings that students will value the subject when it has a focus on lived religion and social cohesion. Pedagogically, it suggests that teachers should aim to balance approaches grounded in academic disciplines with those based on direct dialogue and encounter; and that it will help students to find meaning in RE if teachers avoid an overly transmissive style, and encourage exploration and enquiry.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The authors recognise that this is an exploratory study. However, it builds on sixty years’ research on pupils’ motivation, confirming findings that they engage when the subject relates to their own perceived needs and identities.

Find out more

The original article is Lars Unstad & Henning Fjørtoft (2020): Disciplinary literacy in religious education: the role and relevance of reading, British Journal of Religious Education, DOI: 10.1080/01416200.2020.1754164

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01416200.2020.1754164

Research Summary

The open-access article begins by summarising the findings of 2018 report from the Commission on Religious Education (CoRE), which we use here as a case study to illustrate current issues in Religious Education more generally. The CoRE report suggested that the subject name be changed from ‘Religious Education’ (RE) to ‘Religion and Worldviews’ (RW), which leads us to explore the meaning(s) of the term ‘worldview’, outline the distinction between institutional/organised and personal worldviews, and give an overview of academic debates about the ‘worldviews’ issue. This is followed by a discussion of some of the challenges and implications of the proposed change from RE to RW, addressing concerns that have been raised about dilution of the subject and decreased academic rigour. The article then suggests ways of using a ‘Big Ideas’ approach to the study of religion(s) and worldview(s) to engage students in discussion of ‘worldview’ as a concept and worldviews as phenomena. It explains the ‘Big Ideas’ approach (Wiggins and McTighe 1998; Wintersgill 2017; Freathy and John 2019) before discussing how Big Ideas might be used to select curriculum content, also considering what the implications of this might be for teachers and teaching.

Researchers

Prof Rob Freathy & Dr Helen John

Research Institution

University of Exeter

What is this about?

The article focuses on the issue of worldviews in Religious Education, asking the following questions:

1. What does the 2018 report from the Commission on Religious Education (CoRE) suggest about worldviews in RE?
2. What is meant by the term ‘worldview’? Is a religion a worldview? Does everyone have a worldview?
3. What is the difference between an ‘institutional worldview’ and a ‘personal worldview’?
4. What are the benefits and challenges of incorporating worldviews into RE?
5. What are ‘Big Ideas about the study of religion(s) and worldview(s)’ (Freathy and John 2019)?
6. How might ‘Big Ideas about the study of religion(s) and worldview(s)’ help teachers to explore worldviews in the RE classroom? What are the implications for teachers’ professional development and for the classroom?

What was done?

This theoretical article is an academic response to the key findings of the final report of the Commission on Religion Education (CoRE 2018), which was sponsored by the Religious Education Council for England and Wales. It focuses particularly on the proposal to change the title of Religious Education (RE) to Religion and Worldviews (RW). It explores the meaning of the term ‘worldview’ how worldviews might be selected for inclusion in the curriculum. The article discusses the report’s recommendations for greater focus on multi-disciplinary, multi-methodological and reflexive, encounter-driven approaches. It suggests that teachers might use the ‘Big Ideas about the study of religion(s) and worldview(s)’ (Freathy and John 2019) to achieve closer alignment between RW in schools and the academic study of religion(s) and worldview(s) in universities.

Main findings and outputs

The authors argue that key to the successful delivery of ‘a new and richer version of the subject’ (CoRE, 3) is generating in school students a better understanding of the concept ‘worldview’. Although there is disagreement over precise definitions of the term (just as there is with the term ‘religion’), Freathy and John suggest that this imprecision is something to be embraced. Teachers should explore the complexity of the terms and concepts with their students – focusing explicitly on their contested and imprecise nature – in order to further the students’ understanding of the term and of worldviews themselves. They argue that the report’s distinction between institutional and personal worldviews is a helpful one, albeit with some limitations, and will assist students in appreciating the diverse sources upon which they draw in the ongoing development of their own dynamic ‘worldview web’. Investigation into the institutional/personal distinction could also help students to be sensitive to diversity within institutional worldviews, based on individual and contextual lived experience. A better understanding of the fluid concept of ‘worldview’ will enrich and add rigour to the curriculum, as the report suggests, not act to ‘dilute’ it or to decrease its rigour, as critics have suggested. Building upon earlier research (Freathy and John 2019), the authors suggest that focusing on features of the academic study of religion(s) and worldview(s) – studying how we study – will enable teachers to incorporate the new ‘worldviews’ approach into their teaching without diluting the curriculum. Using these ‘Big Ideas about’ would involve encouraging students to consider explicitly:

Relevance to RE

This article would make excellent background reading for teachers who (a) need a brief summary of the final report from the Commission on Religious Education; (b) would like to know more about the ‘worldview’ concept; (c) want to know more about the Big Ideas framework; and/or (d) wonder how they might incorporate into their classroom practice a greater focus on ‘worldviews’.
The open-access article is entitled ‘Worldviews and Big Ideas: A Way Forward for Religious Education?’ and appears in Nordidactica 2019, Volume 4.

It builds on a previous article by the same authors (search ‘Introducing ‘Big Ideas’ to UK Religious Education’ for equivalent RE:Online Research Report), in which they reflect on the application of the Big Ideas of Science Education project to the UK Religious Education curriculum: Rob Freathy and Helen C. John. 2019. ‘Religious Education, Big Ideas and the study of religion(s) and worldview(s).’ British Journal of Religious Education 41.1: 27-40. DOI: 10.1080/01416200.2018.1500351

Useful resources for a Big Ideas/Worldviews approach to RE/RW

A curriculum package for teachers to use to introduce ‘Big Ideas about the study of religion(s) and worldview(s)’ will follow in 2020.
A ‘Big Ideas about’ approach can be seen in the secondary textbook called ‘Who is Jesus’, which is available online at <https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/education/research/networks/religionandspirituality/publications/ and in the ‘RE-searchers’ approach (primary), which can be found at RE-searchers approach
You might also find the original ‘Big Ideas for RE’ (Wintersgill, ed, 2017) report helpful:
https://tinyurl.com/y7ra365d

Please contact R.J.K.Freathy@exeter.ac.uk for further information about the ideas found in the article and the additional resources, or to get involved with the trialling the RE-searchers (Primary) or ‘Big Ideas about’ (Secondary) approach.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The article is primarily aimed at teachers and RE researchers and considers theoretical perspectives. However, it also gives an insight into practical resources available for ‘worldviews’ teaching at primary and secondary level (see details below).

Find out more

The open-access article is entitled ‘Worldviews and Big Ideas: A Way Forward for Religious Education?’ and appears in Nordidactica 2019, Volume 4.

https://www.kau.se/nordidactica/las-nordidactica/nordidactica-20194-kjerneelementer-og-store-ideercore-elements-and

Research Summary

This research examines conceptions of happiness and pleasure among secular humanists in Britain. Based on fieldwork among members of the British Humanist Association, and its associated local groups, it is found that happiness for the humanists means enlightenment, or an appeal to reason over and against what they see as the irrationality of religion. For them, happiness and pleasure are subjective experiences, but they also reflect philosophical and ethical commitments. For the humanists, to be happy is to be secular.

Researcher

Matthew Engelke

Research Institution

London School of Economics and Political Science

What is this about?

• Humanism
• Happiness
• Secularism
• Ethics
• Humanism in Britain

What was done?

The research methodology is not spelled out, but it appears to be an informal, ethnographic one: spending time with humanists, observing their behaviour and emotions, carrying out conversations with them and, it can be imagined, making notes then or later. The research reads somewhat like journalism.

Main findings and outputs

• Happiness is part and parcel of humanism. Humanism in contemporary Britain is driven by a passion for the pursuit of happiness.
• To humanists, being happy and being “good without god” is a commitment both to pleasure and to progress. It isn’t just a state of mind but a measure of living well. It’s connected with the Enlightenment ethic of thinking for yourself and finding meaning in life now.
• For humanists, critique of religion and cultivation of humanism go hand in hand. Religion is humanism’s opposite and other. Christianity, in particular, is heavily criticized. But it’s because it’s seen as irrational – humanism has its own forms of wonder and celebration. Humanists are also observed holding lengthy ethical discussions; they meet to hold ‘ethical juries’ about how to really, objectively, help others, in different situations. Importantly, the fact that they are deliberating rationally is just as significant as any conclusions that are drawn – it means a ‘happy virtue’ and the ‘only authentic option’.

Relevance to RE

The research is very relevant to any teaching about non-religious worldviews. Teachers can read it to develop subject knowledge, and build the findings into presentations about Humanism they make to students. Some of these findings set up good class or small group discussions, or extended writing topis. How important or wise is it always to think for yourself? How justified is it to say that religion (especially Christianity) is irrational? Or that being happy is a sign of living well?

Generalisability and potential limitations

The informal nature of the research makes it hard to judge whether it represents UK humanists in general, but it is well-backed by wider literature and has an authentic feel. Comments are welcomed!

Find out more

The original article is Matthew Engelke, “Good without God” Happiness and pleasure among the humanists, Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory (2015) 5 (3): 69–91. It can be accessed freely from DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14318/hau5.3.005

Research Summary

In this article, findings from a qualitative study of the views and experiences of 25 RE teachers in England are used to identify and explore a range of issues, in relation to national and international debates and research. Examples of inclusion and the models that they suggest are considered and it is argued that major obstacles, such as limited time and lack of a framework for the integration of religious and nonreligious worldviews, can be overcome. However, it is concluded that this will require further research and curriculum development work and that international collaboration should be pursued.

Researcher

Dr Judith Everington

Research Institution

University of Warwick

What is this about?

Teaching of nonreligious worldviews in RE is recommended in several influential documents, but what are the issues that need to be dealt with?

• The views and experiences of 25 teachers are given.
• There are obstacles such as lack of time and an agreed framework.
• However, it is argued that though further work will be needed, the obstacles can be overcome.

What was done?

The study was undertaken between 2014–16 and employed qualitative research methods. Questionnaires were completed by 25 teachers. Eleven of these (4 men and 7 women) agreed to participate in one-to-one, semi-structured interviews of 45–90 min duration. Participants responded to an invitation disseminated through RE networks. All were RE specialists.

Main findings and outputs

• There is controversy about the inclusion of nonreligious worldviews in RE, some viewing it as essential to an inclusive RE, others as diluting RE’s distinctive content, but so far we know little of teachers’ views.
• Most teachers were unsure how to define a nonreligious worldview but referred to institutional systems as ways of making sense of human experience or providing beliefs and values, almost all mentioning Humanism but not limited to Humanism.Most encouraged nonreligious students to express their views in the classroom.
• All felt that nonreligious worldviews should be included in RE. It would build academic skills, for instance, and social cohesion. But the main reason given was to develop students’ own beliefs or spirituality.
• The teaching approach most often referred to was to make frequent reference to nonreligious views or perspectives in RE lessons and to ensure space for the expression of students’ nonreligious views, though specific units or lessons were also included, if rarely on a systematic basis.
• The main issue mentioned was lack of time. Others were lack of resources and knowledge. Also, do nonreligious worldviews ‘fit’ in a framework for studying religions?

Relevance to RE

There are key issues for schools, as well as researchers, to consider further. Much appears to depend on:

• School support for RE, in providing curriculum time and encouraging the development of innovative approaches.
• Teachers’ development of appropriate subject knowledge.

It also seems pertinent to consider other countries’ experiences, e.g. Norway, where nonreligious worldviews have been taught within RE since 1997. In general, work is also needed to identify which worldviews could be studied in addition to Humanism and to develop criteria for making decisions on this.

Generalisability and potential limitations

As the author says on page 20 of the text:

It is not possible to generalise from the findings of a qualitative study which relied on those with sufficient interest in the subject to volunteer their participation. However, the value of the research lies in the rich data provided by teachers who responded in some detail to questions about their views, experiences and concerns.

Find out more

Judith Everington (2019) Including nonreligious worldviews in religious education: the views and experiences of English secondary school teachers, British Journal of Religious Education, 41:1, 14-26.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01416200.2018.1478277

Research Summary

This presents new and existing evidence which shows that ‘no religion’ has risen to rival ‘Christian’ as the preferred self-designation of British people. It offers a characterisation of the ‘nones’ which reveals that most are not straightforwardly secular. General cultural pluralisation and ethical liberalisation in Britain are held to be significant (churches have tended in the opposite direction). ‘No religion’ has become the new cultural norm, yet Britain is most accurately described as between Christian and ‘no religion’.

Researcher

Linda Woodhead

Research Institution

Lancaster University

What is this about?

‘Nones’ have been increasing in numbers in Britain for some time, but recently a majority of British people declared their affiliation as ‘no religion’ rather than ‘Christian’. What has happened? Who are they? What do they believe and do? Why has the shift occurred? Has Britain ceased to be a ‘Christian country’?

What was done?

This is an overview of census data (since 2001) and data from surveys carried out by the author (from 2013-2015), together with attention to earlier sources so as to plot longer-term trends.

Main findings and outputs

• Whilst ‘no religion’ now exceeds ‘Christian’ as most people’s self-designation, ‘nones’ are not straightforwardly secular.
• They reject religious labels but also secular ones; despite the ‘Dawkins factor’ they are not hostile to religion (e.g. against faith schools).
• In the latest data, if we compare Christian and ‘no religion’ there is a striking contrast between the younger (18–24) with a majority (60 per cent) reporting ‘no religion’ and a minority (27 per cent) identifying as ‘Christian’, and the older (60 and over) where the proportions are roughly reversed.
• A small minority believe in God whilst most are agnostic.
• A quarter take part in a personal religious or spiritual practice, but none take part in communal ones or join groups.
• ‘Nones’ share a liberal value set with many ‘somes’. In 2013-14 the author polled Britons on ‘controversial issues’ such as same-sex marriage, abortion, assisted dying: 83% were towards the liberal end of the opinion scale (supporting individual choice), 100% of ‘nones’ were, contrasting most sharply with Muslims, evangelical Christians and Anglican and Catholic bishops.

Relevance to RE

The relevance to RE teaching is that care needs to be taken when distinguishing religious from secular people, as there are beliefs, attitudes and practices that apply across the apparent divide. This means that a sensitive, differentiated approach to exploring the religious and world-view composition of the UK is needed. Teachers could bring out some of the similarities and differences in discussion with pupils and help them to consider their meanings and consequences.

Generalisability and potential limitations

This is a thorough analysis of comprehensive survey data.

Find out more

Linda Woodhead (2016), ‘The rise of “no religion” in Britain: The emergence of a new cultural majority’, Journal of the British Academy, 4: 245–261.

Available for free download at DOI 10.85871/jba/004.245 https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/1043/11_Woodhead_1825.pdf