Guiding missiological research the symbiotic relationship between academic excellence,flexible research process design and praxis-focused research output

Guiding Research for Potent Christian Witness

This final doxology from St Paul's theological Opus Magnum, echoing Job 38 and 39, sets all human knowledge and wisdom in context. At first reading it might appear to be a recipe for despair, all knowing is ultimately beyond our reach, but in the context of the whole book of Romans it must be read rather as a challenge, or rather an invitation to participate in the divine truth, to know the ‘mind of the Lord’ in order that we might walk in ‘his paths’. Elsewhere, in his letter to the Christians in Ephesus, Paul writes:

‘With all wisdom and understanding, [God] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment – to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ’. ²

Both of these passages stress that the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge has a divine-focused purpose and objective which, put simply, has two interlocked dimensions, the glory of God and the fulfilment of all things under Christ. This single two-dimensional purpose is as true for our knowledge of earth sciences and human psychology as it is for theology and missiology.

These passages together with Genesis 2:16 and its description of how the source of the knowledge of good and evil became an irresistible temptation for mankind also suggest that enquiry, the thirst for knowledge and understanding, is a natural characteristic of humankind from creation. We do not call it ‘research’ but every time a child puts a stone in their mouth, climbs dangerously high on a chair, tries their first vape, or studies closely the way a parent drives the car, they are researching the world in which they live, seeking knowledge and understanding, and, we hope, wisdom. It is often said that we should encourage lifelong learning but in a sense we have no need to do this as women and men are naturally hungry for information, knowledge and understanding. What Genesis 2:16 reminds us of is the vital importance of the ‘direction’ of enquiry and the purpose with which we approach research.

Our acquisition of knowledge is never for our own aggrandisement or even for that our of community but rather for the glory of the all-knowing God and the advancement of God's reign through which all things find fulfilment and unity in Christ. When we gather for a graduation ceremony and, rightly, applaud those before us who are being awarded degrees and doctorates in recognition of their contribution towards human knowing we sometimes can struggle to remember the true purpose of the advancement of human knowledge, understanding and wisdom. As we consider the design and delivery of academic programmes it is important to be asking ourselves questions which will help to ensure that the ultimate purpose of our enterprise is clearly in mind. It is appropriate that we help individuals advance their careers or find personal fulfilment, that organisations are strengthened through the tertiary education of their staff, and that our own institution gets credit for the achievement of graduating good scholars, but not at the expense of the glory of God and the fulfilment and unity of all things in Christ, the advancement of the reign of God.

In a secular context Peter Reason writes (1996: 17), ‘A central purpose of human inquiry is to develop knowledge that informs and guides the way we and others live our lives. It is a living knowledge or action inquiry immediately relevant to how we live our lives’. ³ He goes on to say, ‘In a way, the very question, “What are the purposes of inquiry?” is misleading, for it leads us to think in instrumental ways that inquiry is of value for what it results in, for some external end point. From another perspective, inquiry is simply good in its own right as an expression and actualization of human capability, and the development of the capacity to inquire-into our purposes and values, into our individual and collective behavior, into the life on our planet – is to be celebrated and encouraged in its own right’. ⁴

Taking this into a societal context Fals-Borda Orlando (1996: 79-80) observed that the purpose of inquiry ‘is to transform society radically through knowledge/action for justice, equity, and freedom, especially for the benefit of those social classes which are exploited, destitute, or oppressed, and to give them a proper exercise of power. Science is thus related to political action by means of radical praxis’. ⁵ (Note here the echoing of liberation theology and its emphasis on the Biblical theme of God's bias towards the poor and marginalised.) Whilst Christians would embrace the purpose of knowledge being transformation and the disarming of injustice, inequality and captivity, with a significant bias towards those forced to the margins of society by exploitation, destitution, oppression and the abuse of power, they would wish to be more precise about the ‘destination’ of such transformation brought about through radical praxis. In fact we might wish to replace ‘radical praxis’ with ‘radical discipleship’ and recognise the goal, or telos, of transformation as the eschatological reign and rule of God. This might lead us to speak of the ultimate purpose of research, the acquisition of knowledge, growth in wisdom, as empowering the witness of Christian lives, individually and corporately, to the gospel of Jesus Christ. To see research as a tool to strengthen Christian discipleship. This I would argue, should be our ultimate purpose in research whether the subject of our research is fiscal accountability, next generation battery technology, the treatment of myopia (a disease not unknown amongst theologians!), or the pastoral ethics of Paul in 1 Timothy 5.

All of this leads me to argue that as we design research programmes they need to be delivered in such a way that our researchers are best equipped to contribute to the glory of God and the ‘fulfilment of all things – humanity with the whole of creation – in Christ’. To produce good results research needs form and structure, it needs an agreed methodology and to use tried and tested research tools, but equal focus must be placed on the output from the research, not so much in terms of exams passed but rather in terms of lives transformed and the reign of God brought closer. That may all sound rather grandiose but it seems to me that a mission research centre, such as the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies (OCMS), founded on the vision for Integral Mission and effective witness that transforms individuals and societies cannot afford to lose sight of the ultimate purpose of all the research it sponsors.

We will turn now to consider the strengths and weaknesses of doctoral research and why OCMS felt it necessary to establish an alternative research path for some of its researchers.

Multiple Routes to Effective Research

At OCMS, the commitment of students and dedication of faculty has, over several decades, ensured a very high completion rate for doctoral students. However, McAlpine and Norton (2006: 17) have drawn attention to the fact that, ‘A significant problem in Australian, British, Canadian and US universities, and one of academia's well-kept secrets, is doctoral attrition rates that average from 30% to 50% depending on the subject field (Berelson, 1960; Lovitts, 2001). This attrition results in the loss of highly educated individuals, and is occurring while countries attempt to compete globally in the knowledge economy and individuals demand increased access to post-secondary education’. ⁶ This prompts us to ask whether the doctoral route is the best route for all students wishing to undertake research in their field. The doctoral process is well tested over many years, produces good research, and meets the needs of many individuals and the communities who benefit from the research output. However, particularly in applied science, social science and medicine, multiple route to producing rigorous and effective research are already in use.

Maria Jakubik (2011: 384) reminds us that ‘learning involves not only explicit knowledge, but also tacit knowledge that can emerge in collaborative actions, interactions, finding new ways of doing things, developing new skills by acting in a specific community context, and in questioning, transforming old ways of doing and thinking. Learning as a meaning making process leads to knowing that is a state of understanding our concrete experience, our social cultural situation, and ourselves’. ⁷ The doctoral process can become a fairly solitary journey, albeit with support from supervisors and tutors, which will work well for many people but not everyone. Jakubik encourages us to explore more collaborative models of research which happen in community and are hopefully more closely linked to the eventual application of research findings in context.

In 2017 OCMS became aware that there were a significant number of potential researchers who were wanting to receive support in undertaking rigorous research but who were not wishing to do this through a doctoral programme. Their reasons varied. Some had already completed a doctorate and did not wish to embark on a second but nevertheless had an issue they wished to research with the benefits of institutional affiliation and academic supervision. Others had completed a masters degree but were not ready to move on to doctoral studies either because of the time commitment involved, the financial cost, the work load they were facing in their employment situation, the weight of domestic or community responsibilities, or simply because they did not see a doctorate as ‘their thing’. On the whole these were mission and church leaders or academics already teaching in Christian institutions who had become aware of issues of Christian witness which needed to be addressed, in their context or more widely, who were feeling a calling to engage with this research themselves. In response to this felt need in the global Christian community, in 2018 OCMS launched the Guided Research Programme (GRP), which is now in its sixth year. This was only one of many possible new routes for mission research considered by OCMS. Another, the Integrated Mission Leadership programme, which adopts a more participatory and shared-journey approach to learning and research is described elsewhere in this volume.

The OCMS Guided Research Programme

As a programme of OCMS the GRP retains the essential DNA of the institution which has been its unique offering over the past 40 years. The programme is rooted in an integral (or holistic) approach to Christian witness which understands the gospel of Jesus Christ to be proclaimed in word and deed and through evangelism, discipleship, diakonia, justice and peace ministries and creation care, the Five Marks of Mission (Anglican Consultative Council,1984). ⁸ The programme will support researchers working in any of these areas of Christian witness. Secondly the GRP continues the intentional bias of OCMS towards supporting Christians in the majority world (Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America) to undertake research, allowing them to do this from their home context with short residencies in Oxford and resourcing them through our expanding ‘virtual campus’. Thirdly the GRP deliberately seeks to achieve a balance of gender within the programme by giving extra support to female researchers who may be disadvantaged in their ability to access research opportunities, are facing extra challenges due to family and domestic responsibilities specific to their culture, or struggle to raise the funding required for their research. And finally, the GRP retains the OCMS emphasis on academic excellence, facilitated by dedicated faculty, training in research methodology, access to a wide range of research libraries and digital resources and the support of a personal tutor, even though we seek to achieve this excellence in different ways than might be the case within a doctoral programme. These four factors are all common to the doctoral and GRP programmes but there are also distinctives (Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

GRP Research periods in Months 2018–24.

The first GRP distinctive is the flexibility in the length of the programme. In establishing the programme it was recognised that GRP scholars will enter with different past experience of research, with different levels of work commitments and hence time available for research, and with research proposals which will require different levels of engagement. Some research projects can be completed by a researcher working full-time on their research for 3–6 months, whilst others will require a more sustained engagement up to 3 years either because of the volume of data which needs to be gathered and analysed or because the research topic requires a longitudinal study over several years. Some scholars have already begun data collection and analysis, or have already read widely on their topic, before applying to enter the GRP in order to receive support from other academics in pulling together their analysis and research conclusions, and so require a shorter period with us. The programme was therefore established with a 3-month minimum and 36-month maximum and the understanding that those coming into the programme for 6 months or less will need to spend the majority of this time working full-time on their research whilst resident in Oxford. Flexibility also allows some scholars to adopt a hybrid model with, perhaps, 4 months resident in Oxford followed by a further 12–18 months continuing their research in their home country.

Language is a second distinctive. Whereas all doctoral theses at OCMS (and most British universities) need to submitted in English, GRP scholars are encouraged to submit their research output in whatever language is most appropriate for this context. The aim is to ensure that the output (as described below) reaches the audience who are most able to benefit from the research, apply its findings in Christian ministry and build on what has already been discovered. To this end we look for personal tutors who can work with scholars in the language they will be using for research dissemination. To date one book has been published in (Congolese) French, another was prepared in English and then published in Amharic, and two other researchers are currently working in Spanish in Latin America (Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Scholars qualification at entry to GRP.

Entry requirements for the GRP are also flexible but based on a minimum requirement of the scholar having had some experience of research at masters level. The admissions panel looks at each proposed research project in terms of the previous experience of the scholar and the skills which will be required to achieve the proposed research output. These will vary depending on the nature of the research and whether the scholar is hoping to produce academic articles, a book, a report for their organisation, new teaching materials or some other output (see section below on flexible outputs). Over the past six years we have received more applications at post-doctoral level than we have been anticipating as shown in this chart. When the GRP was first established it was envisaged that it might be attractive for four categories of researcher. These can be briefly described as:

Crossroads. A Christian in leadership in mission, ministry or secular work who is in the process of moving on, or looking to transfer, to the next phase of ministry. They may want an opportunity to reflect and integrate experience with learning. The GRP gives them the opportunity to equip themselves with greater knowledge and perhaps use the integrated experience and understanding of a context or missional situation as a springboard into the next chapter of their work.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

GRP researcher categories.

An analysis of the scholars entering the GRP before February 2024 shows that the majority come from a background of work with mission agencies, with significant numbers from church leadership and academic posts in Christian institutions. Three have had a background with Christian development agencies and one came from a career in finance. The breakdown is shown below. About 43% have been female and 57% male (Figure 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Career background of scholars admitted to GRPs.

A further distinctive of the GRP has been our ability to admit two or more scholars who wish to research jointly on a particular topic. Although collaborative research has become more and more common in the academy as well as in research institutions generally, leading to the joint publication of academic articles and even the award of a Nobel Prize, especially in science, to more than one person, the doctoral journey remains, for most, largely an individual enterprise. Gale, Speedy, and Wyatt (2010) and Jackson & Tinkler (2000) (two doctoral students writing with their supervisor) examine the challenges they faced personally in the history department of a British University as they struggled to submit, and have examined. a doctoral thesis they had co-authored ⁹ . (The article itself is a challenge to academia in that it written in the form of a screen play!) The individual doctoral journey suits certain types of personalities but there are many who thrive better in a research arena which is populated by collaborative teams and characterised by shared thinking and the use of the different gifts that individuals can contribute. The GRP opens up a new space at OCMS, and as a pattern for others, where two people, or a small group of researchers can work together under academic supervision. The first experiment in this direction has led to two researchers joining the GRP to work on a research project in Latin America together with a small team of local researchers who would never have been able to participate in such research for reasons of cost, language and location. We look forward to supporting more research teams like this in the future.

Focus on Research Output, Dissemination and Application

We turn now to what is probably the major distinctive of the GRP, the nature of the output from the research and the question of dissemination. With no examiners to face and certainly no graduation ceremony to celebrate years of toil over their dissertation the focus for scholars in the GRP is very much on the shape, form and sharing of their research product or output. From the moment of first enquiry about admission for the GRP potential researchers are asked about their motivation for research, what they see themselves producing and how this might be used to enhance their own ministry or that of their organisation, church or institution and how they see the knowledge they will create being shared with the Christian community more widely. The message is clear that research undertaken as part of the GRP has a purpose which is to enhance the witness of the church, locally, nationally or globally. This, of course is also true of many doctorates undertaken at OCMS, as elsewhere, but the unique aspect of the GRP is that we allow, indeed encourage, the intended impact of the research to shape the way the research is ultimately presented.

For very good reasons a doctoral thesis will be expected to be presented in a particular way. In general there will be a clear presentation of the ‘problem’ or the primary research question, a literature review, a methodology section, a presentation of primary and then secondary data or sources, an analysis of the data, a set of conclusions, a statement of new knowledge and suggestions for further research together with a summary conclusion and bibliography. A researcher working within the GRP will often cover much of the same ground during the research period but the way this is then presented is very flexible. The primary question will be how can this work be best received by those who will benefit from it most. If local church leaders are those who stand most of benefit then it is very unlikely that they are going to be able to access the research findings by reading a 80,000 word thesis, but they might read a short book or attend a seminar offered locally. If on the other hand the ‘mission’ of the research findings is to change the mindset of seminary students then a text book might be an appropriate way to present the research findings or it might be that a technical report needs to be presented to those responsible for curriculum design and development.

The appropriate presentation of research findings to date are illustrated by the following select examples:

The country director of a Christian development agency whose responsibility is for a team in an African country with a majority Muslim population undertook research into the use of the Kaizen process (Criscione-Naylor, 2020) ¹⁰ for continuous improvement to facilitate organisational change in his Muslim context. His findings were presented to his global organisation as a research report together with a practical guide for those appointed as Kaizen facilitators within the organisation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

GRP research output.

A Challenge for the Academy and the Church : Research as a Discipleship Priority

The GRP offered by OCMS is already enabling a wider range of Christian workers to undertake and disseminate the research for which they have a God-given passion but this experience is also a challenge to the academic world and the church as a whole (Figure 6).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Sanctification cycle.

A decade ago Andrew Davis (2014) ¹¹ advanced his argument that sanctification, growing into Christlikeness (or in Orthodox theological terms, theosis) is a virtuous cycle, or as his book title puts it, “an infinite journey”. This journey moves us from knowledge acquistion to growth in faith based on that knowledge and then on to character transformation and action and new life habits as an outworking of the new affections, desires, will, thought and emotions birthed in the transformed individual which when leads through experience, research and reflection to the acquisition of further knowledge and so on thought the life of the individual. The weakest link in Davis’ argument is in the move from action and life habits to knowledge acquisition. If his sanctification process is to be cyclical then this link between activism and the acquisition of new knowledge leading on to growth in faith needs to be strengthened. Davis fails to deal with this serious problem which has been identified by a significant number of other authors from Evelyn and James Whitehead (1980) ¹² back in 1980 to Liz Hoare (2022) from Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and Cartledge (2022) ¹³ from Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, in 2022. How can evangelical activism flow naturally into reflection, research and new knowledge? The widely accepted definition of the characteristics of Evangelicalism by David Bebbington (1989) ¹⁴ uses a quadrilateral of conversionism, activism, biblicism and crucicentrism, a static definition with no attempt to link the four elements to growth and maturity of faith. As a result many evangelicals, including church and organisational leaders get stuck in the activist mode. Could the GRP and similar developments elsewhere provide a bridge from activism to knowledge and so unblock Davis’ cycle of sanctification. I believe it can.

Taking this step will require change both within the academy and in the church. Both will need to come to understand research and enquiry, the acquisition of knowledge that strengthens faith, as a discipleship priority for every Christian.

As demonstrated earlier most scholars who have come into the GRP at OCMS have come with an evangelical activist background. Their life and work is about the enactment of proper love for God's world. They serve refugees, they train church leaders, they care for the environment, they explain Jesus to Muslims and they care for exhausted missionaries, and they see themselves called to go on doing this. Their motivation for research is to gain the knowledge to help them go on as activists in more effective ways. Research is not a stepping back for a break, to do something different, to avoid the challenge of ministry but rather to answer the questions that are holding them back in their ministry. Adding their thesis to the shelves of a library and hanging doctoral robes in their wardrobe will not be enough – knowledge needs to roll forward into growth in faith, transformation of self and community, and enhanced activist ministry. Of course this is true for most doctoral students in Christian ‘ministry focused’ institutions but perhaps programmes like the GRP can ease the transition, and draw more activists into research.

Volf and Croasmun (2019: 141) approach this challenge from the other end, from the academy, suggesting that:

The main way to determine what kind of theological knowledge is worth having is to ask whether it is an enactment of proper love for God and the world – that is, whether it serves God's mission in the world. Granted, theologians will desire knowledge for its own sake; just possessing it is, arguably, an intrinsic good. But theological knowledge is also an instrumental good; its purpose is to “build up”, to use Paul's term (see 2 Cor. 12-19; cf. 1 Cor. 8:1). Theologians seek knowledge as their way of participating in God's grand project of transforming the world into God’ home. ¹⁵

One East Asian scholar in the GRP at OCMS began her period with us with a desire to research in a traditional way, through structured interviews in a particular community, what might characterise and enhance vibrant communities of Jesus followers who come from a Muslim context. The lockdowns associated with the 2019–2022 Covid pandemic, a hurricane, personal sickness and the demands of ministry thwarted most of her plans but at the same time created space for personal reflection and theoligising around her own, deeply personal, experience in ministry in these same contexts. Together with several extended conversations (over days rather than hours) with community groups these reflections led to the production of a narrative research output which will, arguably, move her and her agency colleagues forward around the Davis sanctification cycle and enhance their ministry more effectively than any of her originally planned journal articles or publications. This is not a better route to ‘enacting proper love for God and the world’ than a doctorate but rather an alternative route that institutions need to consider offering more widely to those for whom it will provide a way forward in serious research.

Ways Forward

In this paper we have used, despite its limitations, the Davis ‘Sanctification Cycle’ to advance the argument that research and knowledge acquisition is an essential part of discipleship for every Christian. Our focus has been particularly of the enablement of this process for those in Christian leadership positions and wishing to engage in research at post-graduate level but the principle applies at every level from the nurture of faith in children and new catechumens to those in the most senior church, agency or academic leadership positions. The paper has also used a particular programme at OCMS, established just six years ago, to illustrate what such an enterprise might look like. Maintaining the focus on Christian leaders I conclude with a few suggested guidelines for moving forward.

The first thing to be clear about is that this alternative track or process of research is not about ‘dumbing down’ or relaxing academic standards. As noted earlier around 40% of scholars joining the OCMS GRP did so as post-doctoral researchers and so began their research with much more research experience than those joining our doctoral programme. The provision of the OCMS Programme for Research Induction to all entrants and the appointment of an appropriate personal tutor (so called so as to distinguish the role from that of doctoral ‘supervisor’), and the minimum MA-level registration requirement ensure that each scholar is able to function at the top of their academic ability. Access to well qualified faculty and world class libraries in Oxford is also an essential feature of the programme.

Secondly for any institution to offer such a flexible research programme requires a degree of positive disruption of the academy and a purposeful listening to churches, agencies and the scholars themselves about how research outputs can most effectively be disseminated so that they are utilised for ministry, shared as widely as possible, and attract future researches to build on any initial findings. It has been interesting that after some initial advertising in year one, OCMS has never, other than featuring the programme on its website, advertised the GRP and yet consistently has over 30 applicants seeking to join the programme. This must be, at least in part, due to the wide dissemination of the books, articles, curricular, training materials and organisational reports that have proved to be a positive contribution to the advancement of Christian witness and personal discipleship.

Offering programmes like the GRP can also be part of the process of helping churches, mission agencies, Christian NGOs and others to think of academic institution as partners in the journey of Christian witness and personal and corporate sanctification rather than as somewhat rarefied places of learning that produce thesis, books, on-line lectures, seminars and podcasts that most busy leaders have no time to engage with. Alumni from these programmes will be the key in this process.

Finally, it is important to remember that the academy itself always needs to be moving forward around the dynamic cycle of sanctification, becoming recreated in the image of Christ. The knowledge it creates and curates will ensure it remains a place of growing faith and that that faith will constantly transform the character of the institution itself as well as its staff and students, and that this transformed character will ensure the relevance of its programmes, activities, and activism so that new witness-focused knowledge continue to be created and the cycle can continue to the glory of God.