What is it about?
Definitions of religion have changed over time and vary according to the socio-historical conditions and even personal background of the researcher in question. Likewise, what religion could be differs according to the method used to study it: cognitive science, history, sociology, anthropology, etc.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
My findings show that researchers rarely exhibit self-reflexivity regarding the subjectivity of their own definitions and methods. More often, researchers will criticize the work of colleagues in other disciplines on methodological grounds, rather than collaborate.
Perspectives
This article serves as a meta-reflection on the special issue of Numen that I edited. The issue was the result of a conference that I organized at Aarhus University for the purpose of gathering researchers from the departments of Science of Religion, Contemporary Ethnography (not called Anthropology), Area Studies, and the Interacting Minds Center to discuss mutual interests and possibilities for collaboration. Paradoxically, being together produced sharper disciplinary differences, rather than blur them as I had expected. Therefore, I was inspired to write this piece.
Cameron Warner
Aarhus Universitet
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: On the Relationship Between Method and the Object of Study When Studying Religion, Numen, March 2014, Brill,
DOI: 10.1163/15685276-12341312.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
