Abstract
Church-affiliated universities operate with increasingly complex roles and functions when engaging with multiple stakeholders in the provision of higher education. This article asks how to understand and analyse the interactions when these universities are among the multiple stakeholders in Christian teacher education. What frameworks of analysis or tools of evaluation can be employed? Stakeholder theory is shown to support the identification of various community interests and involvements and enable clarification of whose perspective or priorities are to be taken into account. From a recent UK research case study, the need for greater understanding and management of stakeholder interests and activity within Christian teacher education is highlighted.
Keywords
Introduction
Universities today engage with many sectors and organizations in the provision of higher education and lifelong learning. They adopt multiple roles and form relationships with a wide range of constituencies and stakeholders. New models of research and knowledge exchange occur not just internally among traditional academic communities of staff and students but externally through collaboration and partnerships with wider organizations and societies (Jongbloed et al., 2008). Research funding increasingly requires useable knowledge, the monitoring of impacts, and the articulation of research outcomes in ways that policymakers or practitioners find relevant and useful (Slunge et al., 2017). Core functions of teaching and knowledge dissemination bring universities into dialogue with external stakeholders that include government, corporate sponsors, public-service professions and community associations. Indeed, services for research, training, consultancy, professional development and continuing education are expected from universities today (Neave, 2000). As Jongbloed et al. (2008: 306) summarize, “Present day universities are forced to be in constant dialogue with their stakeholders in society.”
Within the UK higher-education sector, church-affiliated colleges and universities operate with complex roles and functions that serve multiple stakeholder constituencies, often with competing and conflicting agendas in a largely secular culture (Arthur, 2008). Many of these institutions were originally founded by the Catholic, Anglican and Methodist churches for the purpose of training teachers for both church and state schools. Most have now become fully-fledged universities and expanded their academic portfolios to cover the full range of disciplines, but they have traditionally specialized in teacher education. Today, recent government changes to initial teacher training in the UK allow for both university- and school-based routes. This is bringing the universities into research partnerships and collaborative knowledge exchange with external stakeholders who include religious sponsoring bodies and faith communities to support not just academic or professional studies but the ecclesial or faith dimensions of teacher education. This is a timely and challenging area for discussion. As demands on university resources become more dependent on market decisions and performance data, so universities face an increasingly complex choice over which stakeholder interests to prioritize and how to manage them. It is an issue that is especially pertinent to church-affiliated universities, whose foundational ethos and mission needs to find relevance and articulation in the secular academy and marketplace.
This article does not set out to evaluate the long-standing role and contribution of higher-education colleges and universities to Christian teacher formation. Instead, the article takes up a different discourse by asking about the complex nature of the interaction when church-affiliated universities are among the multiple stakeholders involved in the provision of Christian teacher education. This brings the universities into networks of relationships that extend beyond their own immediate staff and students and into involvement with the wider church community and its schools and practitioner bodies. So, the first question to be addressed is how to understand and analyse such interaction. What frameworks or tools of evaluation might be used to understand the complex intersection of collaboration and partnership (Wicks, 2014)? By way of response, the article firstly introduces some insights from interdisciplinary stakeholder theory. Then it presents a recent UK research case study, which involves a number of Catholic higher-education institutions in the delivery of a long-standing national course of adult theological formation that is commonly undertaken by both new and serving teachers. The case study offers an example to illustrate the nature of and challenges pertaining to the role that the universities play within a multiple stakeholder provision of teacher formation for church schools. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the need for greater understanding of stakeholder activity and its significance within Christian teacher education.
It is important from the outset to state the modest claims of this article. Much of the literature on stakeholder theory emanates from and is intended for business management or economic theory. This is not the expertise of this author, nor is it the thrust of this article. So, it is valid to question the relevance of employing ideas from stakeholder interaction theory as a framework for discussing the role of the universities in Christian teacher education. Stakeholder theory emerged initially from the world of commercial and financial thinking, although it has now been taken up by other sectors and academic disciplines, including healthcare, and environmental and social sciences (Andriof et al., 2002). Some have questioned whether the thinking behind stakeholder theory is relevant or even antithetical to religious and spiritual undertakings. Indeed, a separation thesis where the idea that religious and business or organizational management have nothing in common has been somewhat prevalent (Wicks, 2014). Stakeholder theory has thus not previously been associated with Christian teacher education. Critics may well object to what could appear as misappropriation of theories and concepts from a discipline that lies outside the realms of both education and ecclesiology.
However, this article suggests that while there is risk of criticism in taking stakeholder theory into an interdisciplinary arena that goes beyond its original boundaries, nevertheless it argues that there is value in drawing upon some of its core ideas in order to help conceptualize the changing nature of how universities are involved with religious and professional bodies in forming teachers for church schools today. It is hoped that this will be of interest and relevance to those involved in Christian higher-education research, mission and practice.
Insights from stakeholder interaction theory
Freeman (1984), one of the first contributors to the stakeholder discourse, defined stakeholders in broad terms as individuals or groups who can affect or who are affected by an organization's purpose or activities. Although there seems to be no universally accepted definition of the meaning or application of the term ‘stakeholder’, a growing body of theorists set out to explain how organizations function with respect to the various constituencies with whom they are involved (Andriof et al., 2002). Two aspects of stakeholder thinking can be briefly outlined in this section of the article. One aspect enquires as to who the stakeholders are in any given enterprise, and this, in turn, emphasizes the need for clear identification of the individuals and groups involved. As each stakeholder group may have their own unique set of attributes, demands, priorities and objectives, so the mapping and subsequent management of these interdependencies and possible conflicts of interest is paramount (Andriof et al., 2003). Stakeholder theory emphasizes the importance of relationship, seeing that this cannot be overlooked but rather must be understood as a complex interplay of shifting, sometimes ambiguous and contested connections between and within diverse organizations who, nevertheless, all invest some form of human, academic, spiritual, financial or professional capital into the enterprise. Therefore, stakeholder theory sees that collaborative strategies are needed to go beyond traditional corporate interest or linear movement of activity to invite partnership, dialogue and communication among the key players.
In addition to identifying who has a stake, the concept of salience offers a further contribution to identifying stakeholder characteristics and claims for engagement. This classifies stakeholders according to their relative importance, and distinguishes between their authority and power to influence an organization, the legitimacy (or relevance and appropriateness) of their relationship with the organization, and the urgency or seriousness of their claim for attention and activity in the organization. These attributes, and the varying degrees to which they may be present or lacking among diverse stakeholders, help determine the priority of their claims and interests. From this, stakeholders can be classed as either definitive (high), expectant (moderate) or latent (low) salience (Mitchell et al., 1997). This model helps to identify and explain different stakeholder behaviour.
In outlining some core underlying concepts from stakeholder theory, it is important to state that this way of thinking has been largely missing from the discourse concerning religion and spirituality (Carrascoso, 2014). However, limited examples can be referenced. Wicks (2014) promotes stakeholder theory to scholars of religion and spirituality for asking searching questions such as what kind of work or vocation should be sought or promoted, what the terms are on which co-operation and work with others should be built, how such relationships can be evaluated, and how organizations (religious or otherwise) can constructively support dialogue about human flourishing. Another aspect of stakeholder theory seeks the normative core, i.e. the purposes or reasons why an organization exists and the set of operating principles that shapes what it is about and what it does. When the normative core is grounded in religious tradition, then this should impact the way an organization acts ethically, professionally, educationally, financially etc. (Wicks, 2014).
Carrascoso (2014) develops the notion of stakeholder normative core in connection with the core tenets of Catholic social teaching, such as options for the common good, human development, and solidarity with the poor, to reframe them as norms to be applied by associated organizations and individuals. What is significant in his approach, which is primarily still aimed at a business readership, is the broadening of aspects of stakeholder theory into the religious domain. This is also evident in the discussion of stakeholder theory by Ray et al. (2014), who argue that the construction of principles drawn from religious faith traditions offers a compelling normative core to carry into stakeholder relations. In calling for further research, they seek more analysis on how belief systems that are manifest in the commitments of specific denominations, faith communities and religious organizations might further shape stakeholder theory. They see that exploration of the way that organizations, religious and otherwise, operate as stakeholder groups is useful for understanding their motives, missions, priorities and activities.
The above-mentioned literature is primarily articulated from within business and organizational management discourses. Jongbloed et al. (2008) apply stakeholder theory to the higher-education context and the need for every university to pay attention to the many communities and relationships it holds. The stakeholders associated with a university are multiple and diverse. The community of scholars, academic staff and students is the core internal constituency without which any university cannot properly function. But the core functions of the university's programmes, mission, outreach and engagements are likely to be also expressed in wider public domains. So, while traditional stakeholders include students, academics and researchers, governing bodies, funding organizations and research or practitioner sponsors, other relationships exist with commercial, industrial or professional partners (Jongbloed et al., 2008). For universities engaged in Christian teacher education, this may well include working with and alongside national church agencies, and local schools or dioceses. We now turn to a UK research case study to explore the complex academic, ecclesial and professional relationships that exist within the provision of teacher education and the part that a number of Catholic universities and higher-education institutions play in this.
Research case study
The next section of this article connects the preliminary ideas presented from stakeholder theory to findings drawn from a recent research report on the Catholic Certificate in Religious Studies (CCRS; Stuart-Buttle, 2019). The CCRS has provided theological education across England and Wales since 1991–92 to adults wishing to deepen their formal knowledge of the Catholic faith tradition. Since the year 2000, over 20,000 adults have been registered onto the course. The largest participant group to date has been teachers and those training for or working in the education sector, often undertaking the course for professional development or to secure employment in a Catholic school. Research indicates that those working in education roles comprise the majority (87%) of the overall participant cohort. The CCRS has thus acted as both vehicle and benchmark for theological formation for teachers across the country since the early 1990s. Course standards and curriculum requirements are laid down by the national awarding body, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales' Board of Religious Studies. Eight modular components are required with fixed contact time and mandatory assessment. Six core modules cover Old and New Testaments, Christology, Ecclesiology, Sacraments and Morality, while two elective specialist modules allow a more practical application as determined by local specification.
In light of the twenty-fifth anniversary since the CCRS began, a research project was set up to enable educational conversation and theological reflection about the nature and provision of adult theological education in contemporary religious, political, socio-cultural and educational contexts. Since its inauguration, the CCRS has developed policies, curriculum enhancements and teaching and learning strategies, while the Board of Religious Studies leadership as well as the local providing bodies and student audiences have changed over time. The wider educational, religious and cultural contexts facing the CCRS today are different from those of 25 years ago. Particular concerns over how to maintain a commitment to the Christian educational mission in schools given a diminishing number of committed or actively practising Christian teachers has occupied recent attention. Some form of theological formation is seen as desirable, both in preparing new entrants for the profession and as continuing development for those already serving in our schools (Engebretson, 2014; Robinson, 2002; Stuart-Buttle, 2017). Teachers need to be professionally qualified and pedagogically skilled, not just in their academic disciplines but to enable their participation in and contribution to the distinctive Christian nature and mission of the school (McKinney and Sullivan, 2013).
The research project set out to seek a systematic exploration of the CCRS to take account of both the participant experience and stakeholder expectations. Core questions were asked about the role and purpose of CCRS, what sort of theological learning occurs, why people study, what impact is made, and what is needed for the future. The research design consisted of two phases. A Phase One online survey was targeted at past and present course participants, but the actual number of the target population was impossible to ascertain owing to the way national and local records are kept. For this reason, CCRS participating dioceses and local centres were asked to disseminate an online survey link to their past and current students. This attracted a sample population of just short of 1500 responses, from which quantitative data for statistical analysis as well as qualitative data coded and categorized for thematic analysis purposes was drawn. The Phase Two interviews were conducted with CCRS stakeholders, who included bishops, diocesan education directors, CCRS tutors and head teachers in primary and secondary schools. The interviews were recorded using digital voice recording apparatus before then being professionally transcribed and saved in electronic form for subsequent thematic coding and analysis. Reporting of all data from both project phases was kept anonymous so as to be in keeping with ethical guidelines and good research practice.
The final research report concludes that there is much to value and celebrate in the contribution of CCRS to adult formation across England and Wales. The majority of participants testify that they study CCRS in order to enhance their knowledge and understanding of Christian faith. They speak of the positive impact of gaining theological knowledge and understanding for both personal formation and professional development. When asked specifically about this, 86 percent affirmed that CCRS helped them explore their own faith and beliefs, 90 percent said it informed their knowledge and understanding of Catholic faith, 81 percent said it deepened their critical reflection about their faith, 80 percent said it gave confidence in communicating and articulating faith to others, 69 percent said the course helped them to integrate theology with their professional practice, 77 percent said it contributed to their spiritual development, and 70 percent said it motivated them to further action in school or parish. The stakeholder interviews largely concur with and support these findings. While both sets of data from across the two project phases also indicate areas of tension and challenge from both course participant experience and stakeholder perspectives, the overall data from the research case study confirms the CCRS to be a valuable resource for supporting teacher education across the country.
Connecting stakeholder theory with the research case study
We have already seen that stakeholder theory fundamentally assumes the existence of a relationship between an organization and its stakeholders that is based on some form of mutual interest and activity (Andriof et al., 2003). When considering this in light of the CCRS, the universities involved in delivering the course are providing institutions with their own set of internal audiences, priorities and demands, but, at the same time, are embedded into a wider network of relationships with other CCRS providers. Some key questions can be asked concerning the stakeholders in CCRS as to what their particular stake is and where the universities fit in. Furthermore, what sort of stakeholder salience do the universities themselves present to the CCRS in terms of specific claims and priorities? What contradictions of purpose or urgency might exist? The remainder of the article now sets out to explore such questions.
Who are the stakeholders in CCRS? Where do the universities fit in?
The management, provision and delivery of the CCRS involves an array of stakeholders from across church, higher-education, school and professional sectors. In terms of central function, the CCRS registration, curriculum, assessment and certification policies are overseen by the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales' Board of Religious Studies. This awarding body is comprised of representative members from the Catholic Education Service of England and Wales, Diocesan Schools Commissioners, the National Board of Religious Inspectors and Advisers, Catholic higher-education providers, regional diocesan representatives and distance-learning providers. The day-to-day delivery and provision of the CCRS takes place in a local context. Research indicates that this includes all 22 Catholic dioceses of England and Wales alongside five Catholic universities, 1 as well as two additional Catholic higher-education institutions, two specified distance-learning centres and one association for those with a specific learning need. Participants taking the course through a local diocese comprise 56 percent of the survey population; those undertaking the course though the universities comprise just over 30 percent, with the remainder studying through one of the other options mentioned above.
The universities and higher-education institutions represented in the research report jointly comprise one constituency on a CCRS stakeholder map. However, each of these individual institutions has its own unique set of characteristics, priorities and objectives which affect the prominence and provision it gives to the course. For example, factors such as whether the CCRS is made available as undergraduate or postgraduate provision, the number and type of students the course is open to, how the course is scheduled and timetabled, whether the course is accredited by the university or set as optional professional development, the integration (or lack) of the CCRS with other programme demands or curricular opportunities, and the profile of the course among local schools and diocese, influence and determine how the CCRS is provided and received at the local level. In addition, the universities and higher-education settings identified in the CCRS research report are located in different geographical regions across the country, with different diocesan relationships, unique institutional histories and priorities, and their own internal and external stakeholder communities. This means that the relationship between and among the higher-education constituency involved in the CCRS is in itself complex.
The complexity is heightened when a broader CCRS stakeholder map is envisaged. The research case study includes Phase Two interview data from senior church leaders, primary and secondary school head teachers, diocesan directors of schools, diocesan advisers in adult formation and religious education, and CCRS course providers. This indicates a wide range of stakeholders with differing interests or involvement in the CCRS and who collectively represent different ecclesiological contexts and professional positions from around the country. For example, some stakeholder groups are directly responsible for or directly involved in the oversight or provision of the CCRS as senior church leaders or diocesan officers and, as such, carry a particular remit for supporting the ecclesial dimensions of Christian education through various initiatives in their schools and dioceses. Other stakeholders, such as school head teachers, may hold less direct involvement in course delivery but represent active practitioner perspectives that carry particular concern for the initial training and ongoing professional development of teachers as faculty to staff their schools. This indicates variation between groups of stakeholders, borne out in the Phase Two interviews over what are perceived as the core academic, professional and pastoral dimensions of the CCRS. Historically there has been a divide between dioceses who offer the CCRS primarily through pastoral initiatives and the universities who offer it within academic programmes or teacher-training school-based partnerships. This is heightened in the gap between stakeholders who view the role and purpose of the CCRS as aligned with theology or ecclesiology and those who view it more in terms of function or usefulness for school pedagogy or a classroom practitioner role. Further data from the stakeholder interviews also indicates mixed and, at times, diverse observations about the CCRS that vary according to local factors such as organizational structures, perceived needs and priorities, availability of support from diocese or local schools, and local profile and participant uptake. Such factors can be influential determinants of differing types of stakeholder engagement.
Another key group of CCRS stakeholders is, of course, those who study the course – the student body. This again represents a complex stakeholder grouping. Demographic data from Phase One of the research report demonstrates a diverse student population where 81 percent of those who take CCRS are female and 19 percent are male. The age range runs from 18 years to over 65 years, with a majority aged between 26 and 55 years. There is some discrepancy between those in education and other roles. For example, of those in a school role, 60 percent occupy the younger 26–45 age group, whereas for those in a parish role (the largest group), 55 percent are aged over 55 years. Among the majority of 87 percent participants who declare a school-based role are teachers in Catholic primary schools (41%), teachers in Catholic secondary schools (6%), Catholic school leaders (16%), trainee teachers for primary education (5%), trainee teachers for secondary education (1%), other Catholic school education roles (4%), teachers in non-Catholic primary schools (4%), teachers in non-Catholic secondary schools (2%) and school governors (1%). In terms of religious affiliation, the population indicates an 80 percent majority who state themselves as practising Catholics, with those who declare as ‘non-practising Catholic’ (8%) and the rest from other Christian denominations, alongside a very small number from other (non)religious backgrounds. The general education level shows that 89 percent are educated to degree level but the remainder do not possess a higher-education background. So, taking gender, age, role, religious affiliation and general education into account, the CCRS participant body represents another multifaceted stakeholder grouping.
What emerges from this provisional mapping of stakeholders indicates a diversity and complexity of relationship between and among the various stakeholders associated with the CCRS. This suggests that when universities and higher-education institutions are involved as partners in supporting the ecclesial or faith dimensions of teacher education in collaboration with wider religious and professional sponsoring bodies, then close attention to stakeholder identification and analysis of differentiation can help both the understanding and management of the needs and priorities of all concerned.
In terms of stakeholder salience, what claims and priorities do the universities present?
The CCRS is commonly positioned in the Catholic universities and higher-education institutions identified in the research, as an opportunity for those undertaking initial teacher training or continuing professional development (CPD) to gain theological knowledge for a role in a church school. The concept of stakeholder salience, modelled in three ways by Mitchell et al. (1997) as previously discussed, helps to further conceptualize the complexities involved. The first defining attribute of stakeholder salience concerns the level of authority or the extent to which these institutions are able to impact and influence the CCRS. Here, the research case study confirms that the five universities have traditionally provided for participants in teacher training or those already serving in the profession. Historically and collectively, these universities have played a key role, not just in the original conception and subsequent provision of what was formerly the Catholic Teachers Certificate taught at local teacher training colleges, but also when the CCRS was launched in 1991–92 through their joint participation and continued influence and long-standing membership of the Board of Religious Studies and regional committees. The universities and higher-education colleges have provided academic insight and quality assurance standards, often supporting in practical ways the needs of smaller dioceses and informing national policy over such things as learning and teaching pedagogies, course resources, and improved assessment practices. In this sense, the universities might be perceived as definitive rather than expectant or latent stakeholders in a typology of stakeholder salience because of the overall joint contribution they have made to policy, practice and provision of the national CCRS course over the past 25 years.
However, a second characteristic of stakeholder salience concerns the legitimacy that these universities themselves invest in the CCRS, and here the picture becomes more varied and less definitive. For example, some of the universities have offered CCRS for academic credit within their regulated degree programmes, whereas others have left the course as an optional undertaking or non-accredited CPD for their teacher trainees. Both options carry underlying tensions. When the CCRS is accredited, then it has to meet the UK higher-education qualification and credit frameworks and comply with university academic systems. This can risk subsuming the CCRS into formal academic study and restrict the opportunities for personal faith dimensions or spiritual formation. Alternatively, when the CCRS is offered in the university as optional CPD for a church school role, then there is risk of distance or separation from mainstream academic or professional activity, and possible disregard or suspicion for what might be perceived as specialized activity that only meets the needs of a specific group of students or that which is seen to privilege the claims of religious faith in the academy.
We have already seen that one core group of stakeholders is the CCRS students themselves. Regardless of how the CCRS is determined by university providers, the purpose and challenges of doing the course from the university student perspective are strongly voiced in the research data. Many students who take the CCRS while at university are working towards an initial teaching qualification or higher-education degree. The higher-education students identified in the Phase One survey sample population represent those who have completed the CCRS as well as those currently working towards it. Their key concerns emerge over practical issues such as workload pressures on top of existing academic studies, demands of family life and other employment, the time and personal commitment involved and the additional financial cost incurred. But what also emerges is their clear sense of purpose for doing the course, where the majority state that this is to gain knowledge and understanding of the Catholic faith to prepare for (or secure) a role in a Catholic school for either classroom teaching or a school leadership position. This links with what they felt they gained from undertaking CCRS in terms of theological learning. Here, 25 percent said they had gained a foundational vocabulary and knowledge about God, Scripture, church, sacraments etc. that was previously missing. Meanwhile, 21 percent stated that their previously limited understanding and appreciation of Christian doctrine in areas including Trinity, Incarnation, Revelation and Christian ethics had been developed and enhanced, while 13 percent felt enabled to relate and apply theological language and Christian worldview to their real-life professional or pastoral situations. Furthermore, 38 percent said all of the above had resulted from taking the course. The remaining higher-education survey participants, who stated that none of the above had been achieved, echoed either a negative local experience in studying the course or the dissonance they felt between studying Christian theology and relating this to their school role or professional practice. This was also reflected in those students who started but did not complete the whole course and who cited a lack of relevance or congruence between the CCRS curriculum and their professional training placements.
This is particularly challenging when taking a third indication of stakeholder salience into account – in other words, the urgency or commitment to the CCRS that is given by the higher-education institutions. The Catholic universities involved in the CCRS commonly view it as something that stems from and contributes to their foundational Christian mission. These universities have been built upon faith-based values and a Christian heritage. They remain committed to providing a high-quality education for all their students, taking seriously the intellectual, cultural, social, and spiritual needs of the individuals and communities they serve. But the languages of faith and theology can no longer be taken for granted in the academy. Nor can it be assumed that there is a Christian foundation on which students' lives or indeed educational curriculum or pedagogy can be based. In modern educational theory and its associated fields of the humanities and social sciences, Christian faith and theology have become marginalized. Before they have even entered university, many of our students have been subject to cultural and socialization processes that have embedded ideological elements, many of which prejudice young people against the claims of faith. There is an assumed public culture that views Christianity as no more than a faded symbol of a departed heritage (Wright, 2002). We can also point to a rising professionalization of education and training that restricts religious language to private use while deploying a secular vocabulary for its dealings in the public and professional domain. What is often advocated is a perceived neutrality or suspension of religious belief and action, seen as necessary in order to conform to the supposed norms of professional practice, including teaching and education (Stuart-Buttle, 2018).
Furthermore, all universities, both church-affiliated and secular, must comply with government and public regulatory bodies for quality, efficiency and effectiveness. They must also allocate their human and physical resources in service to the core functions of teaching and research in the academy as well as to the wider community and public mission (Jongbloed et al., 2008). Faith-based activity such as the CCRS may well be viewed as important for a church-affiliated university's ethos, mission and public outreach, but this does not set aside serious questions or challenges relating not just to its internal stakeholders including the student body, but also to those responsible for managing curriculum, resource capacity and institutional goals as well as the relationships with wider partners and constituencies.
Conclusion
Jongbloed et al. (2008) state that universities are expected to be excellent in their core functions of teaching and research in the academy, as well as entrepreneurial and pastoral in their approach to students. At the same time, they are to be collegial yet competitive in relating to other knowledge providers, and both local and (inter)national in their public service and mission. The changing nature of higher education means that there is an increasingly complex context for understanding and managing diverse stakeholder relations and interests.
This article has suggested that core aspects of stakeholder theory, a well-recognized paradigm in other disciplines, can offer a useful framework for insight and analysis. So far, there has been a lack of critical literature to unpack the complexity of stakeholder relations with application to Christian education and teacher formation for church schools. This is something this article sets out to remedy and also to encourage for future research. In presenting the CCRS research case study by way of one illustrative example, stakeholder theory can be shown to support the identification of various community involvements and the clarification of whose perspective or priorities are to be taken into account. While the limits of deploying stakeholder insights are acknowledged, nevertheless they enable both conceptualization and evaluation of the complex nature of the interaction when church-affiliated universities are among the multiple stakeholders involved in the provision of Christian education. This is significant for universities and higher-education institutions whose Christian mission and foundational values lie at the heart of their academic enterprise.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The CCRS research project was supported by funding from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales Board of Religious Studies.