Abstract
In Researching Religion: Why We Need Social Science, Steve Bruce uses his decades of experience in analyzing religion to provide much-needed methodological guidance for the field of contemporary religious studies. In doing so, Bruce delivers a clear and unapologetic endorsement of positivistic social scientific methods and theory to understand religious institutions and religiosity. Bruce’s approach contrasts with the narrative and interpretive methods embraced by most religious studies scholars, and Bruce aptly demonstrates why stories interpreted by scholars are often vague, wrong, or both.
A key problem Bruce identifies with much of religious studies, which includes a sizeable cadre of sociologists, is the failure to systematize concepts. Indeed, the field suffers from an impulse to do the opposite—to problematize concepts and add undue nuance to their definitions and operationalization. Bruce effectively and entertainingly points out the futility of viewing football or gardening as being religious activities, and he skewers the notion that everyday secular activities are implicitly religious. General sociologists may be surprised to learn that much of contemporary religious studies is enamored with problematizing the secular by claiming that secularity is implicitly religious, but Bruce is well aware that religious studies scholars who problematize the secular, amplify implicit religion, and extol the importance of folk religion are rewarded in the field.
Researching Religion also points to an ongoing problem in religious studies and the sociology of religion—the tendency of religious subjects and religious researchers to reject systematic sociological concepts and classifications. Key examples are concepts like cult, church, and sect, which have been articulated and refined by sociologists since Weber. Yet religious sociologists take umbrage with the use of the term “sect” or “cult” to describe their own group, even if it fits the operational definition of being “a novel religious movement” or a “a longstanding religious movement at tension with dominant society.” Instead, religious scholars want to create their own labels, which might clash with preexisting sociological concepts (e.g., the use of “evangelical” to describe sectarian religious denominations) and prevent continuity in the advance of positive social science.
Given that the field of religious studies is populated primarily by people who are not social scientists, Bruce takes up the necessary task of explaining issues of measurement and how concepts must be operationalized for the study of religion in the general population. While many theologians and other scholars tend to reject the epistemological strategy of reducing religious beliefs, behaviors, and identities to simple core principles and indicators, Bruce makes a strong and critical case for the quantitative study of religion. His treatment is thorough and easy to follow, even for relatively complex issues like how to measure and interpret religious diversity given contemporary theoretical debates. Bruce justifies his advocacy of quantitative approaches as someone who is mostly known for his qualitative research and was initially skeptical of the value of quantification.
Researching Religion also covers important issues of research bias and ethics in religious research. Here, Bruce’s unique location in the United Kingdom likely colors his view of how religious commitments influence the ability of researchers to maintain value neutrality, though I laud his quest for and advocacy of value-neutral research. Bruce argues that most sociologists of religion are relatively unaffected by their own religious commitments and that this is especially true in the United Kingdom and Europe because most sociologists of religion are secular. Given Bruce’s experience with only a small number of religiously inclined sociologists, none of whom hail from sectarian religious groups, it is natural that he finds little evidence of religious commitments leading to bias. In the United States, however, the situation is considerably different. Sociologists who are religious conservatives from both sectarian Protestant and Catholic persuasions not only gear their data collection, analyses, and interpretations in ways that favor their faith perspectives; they also wield considerable clout and enjoy access to research funds from private foundations, and they use their biased research to inform public policy on a host of political issues. On the other side of the pond, it seems that the dominance of secular orientations among scholars leads researchers to see secularity everywhere, as in Bruce’s claims that Pentecostals and other sectarians in the United Kingdom are somehow mainstream and implicitly secular.
After spending most of Researching Religion advocating quantitative methods, Bruce comes out in a full-throated roar supporting the ethics of qualitative research. Bruce’s treatment of research ethics focuses on the issue of informed consent and what that implies for research on religion. I wholeheartedly agree with Bruce’s opposition to radical applications of informed consent for unobtrusive and participant observation research. If a person agrees to tell you what they think about religion, how does that harm them if you use it in a publication that will be read by a small cadre of scholars? Indeed, as Bruce notes, many subjects tell you what they think without prompting. Human subjects committees are often overly harsh in dealing with research proposals regarding religion and qualitative sociology in general. Bruce offers many cogent observations about this problem. I hope that his contribution will help generate pushback against the assertion by university bureaucrats that asking people questions about common things is somehow a violation of their privacy or an assault on their personhood.
Bruce concludes his book with a substantive chapter on religious conversion and a thorough discussion of the use of theory in religious research. The two chapters on theory cover the dominant theorists used by U.K. sociologists of religion, as well as a relative assessment of the value of normative, agenda-setting, explanatory, and rational actor models. Bruce’s critique of the supply side rational choice model is both thorough and convincing; however, his presentation of rational actor models of religion ignores demand side alternatives that focus on preference formation, normative constraints, and social networks.
Researching Religion joins a growing set of recent works on methodological issues in the sociology of religion. Bruce’s book is an important work that should be read by any serious sociologist of religion. It is exceptionally well written and engaging, and it provides American readers with a thorough overview of research from the United Kingdom. I hope that it is also noticed by religious studies scholars outside of sociology. It should be required reading in religious studies.