DISKUS: Paul Weller



	home back to Diskus 8
			DISKUS Vol. 8 (2007) http://www.basr.ac.uk/diskus/diskus7/weller.htm RENDERING UNTO CAESAR?: ETHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN WORKING FOR GOVERNMENT ON RESEARCHING RELIGION Paul Weller Professor of Inter-Religious Relations and Head of Research and Commercial Development, Faculty of Education, Health and Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, UK Email: p.g.weller@derby.ac.uk Abstract This article examines ethics in study, teaching and research in relation to religions. While some disciplines have explicit codes of research ethics, the study of religion in the UK has only the 2005 Framework for Professional Practice that was produced by the Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies (AUDTRS). This Framework is largely concerned with ‘personalist' issues affecting the scholar, while not really paying attention to the possible ethical implications involved in undertaking research for the government and other public bodies. Since the establishment of the major Research Council programme on “Religion and Society”, more attention needs to be paid to such issues. The article does this by reference to two case studies of recent research projects in which the author has been involved. The first was a research project for the Home Office in 1999-2001, examining the nature and extent of religious discrimination in England and Wales. The second was a review of the evidence base on the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh populations of England in relation to the strategic policy areas of the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Reflecting on these case studies, the article explores: working within given terms of reference; working within contractual and legal constraints; the role of explicit and implicit stakeholders; issues around “facts and figures”; and matters to do with media coverage. Its conclusion affirms the importance of engaging in research that is willing in principle to work for government, but which proceeds on the basis of a contextually and professionally aware axionalysis. INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE SCENE Explicit, or at least codified, attention to research ethics is, arguably – and perhaps ironically - a relatively new development in the study of religion in the UK. It emerged most recently in the Framework for Professional Practice <1> issued by the Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies (AUDTRS), and which has been written about in the Bulletin of the British Association for the Study of Religions (BASR). <2> For sociologists and a number of others engaged in the study of religion there have, of course, for some years been ethical guidelines and codes of practice related to their substantive disciplinary or professional group. These include, for example, those issued by the British Sociological Association. <3> In addition, for members of professional bodies such as the British Psychological Society <4> or the United Kingdom Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, <5> there have also been professional ethical standards. These codes, of course, go beyond research as such and into matters of professional practice. Clearly, ethics forms a substantive part of the religious traditions themselves and of religious practice. Ethical analyses that stand outside of religious practice, while seeking to reflect upon it, are not common. Margaret Battin’s <6> book, Ethics in the Sanctuary: Examining the Practices of Organised Religion, is still perhaps, as it was at the time of its original publication, distinguished by being unusual for its focus on organised religious groups, albeit one that is primarily focussed on Christian forms of organised religion. It terms of the study of religion it can be pointed out - as the AUDTRS Framework does - that a study of ethics is itself a significant part of the study of religions. But to restrict consideration of ethics to a sub-set of a disciplinary field can reinforce the illusion that other areas of the study of religion do not pose ethical issues. In addition, in relation to the wider field of the study of religion, it could be argued that even without explicit codes of practice, the reflexive consciousness that is aspired to by academics brings about at least some implicit attention to ethics. In other words, academics in the study of religion work with an awareness that, in religion, they are touching on something that is often precious to individuals and groups. This something is that around which identities can be either organised and built up and/or can disintegrate or be destroyed. Indeed, in relation specifically to the classical Religious Studies approach of phenomenology, it can be argued that some key considerations of research ethics are embodied in the method itself. This might, for instance, apply to the attempt to suspend judgement in a stance of ‘epoché’, while trying to allow the phenomena to speak for themselves in terms of their ‘dasein’, rather than imposing upon them an interpretive theological or ideological framework. The development of a Framework such as the AUDTRS one is very welcome. However, its main accent might perhaps be predominantly seen as ‘personalist’. That is to say, it is written primarily in relation to the context of the dynamics that exist between the teacher and the learner, the researcher and researched. Less attention is given to the role and impact of other more institutional stakeholders in research in the study of religion - apart, that is, from the wish of the proponents of Religious Studies to be free from organisational and financial dependence on ecclesiastical or other religious bodies and organisations. The nearest, perhaps, that the AUDTRS Frameworkgets to these more corporate considerations in research ethics, is in its paragraph 2.7. This is headed “From whom is it appropriate to receive funding?” and it includes the following statement: There is no agreed view among academics as to whether to accept funding or sponsorship from bodies that are at times judged to be controversial, and AUDTRS has no wish to impose an answer on this difficult area. Colleagues are encouraged to weigh up the issues involved, paying due regard to the notions of academic freedom, conscience, possible bias that can result from external funding, and the purposes for which one’s research might be used. <7> Also of relevance is paragraph 2.5. This is headed, “What people or bodies have an interest in one’s work?” It states that, “A variety of individuals and bodies - sometimes referred to as ‘stakeholders’ are affected by teaching and research in TRS: teachers, researchers, students, academic institutions, religious communities, funding bodies”. <8> Interestingly for the focus of this paper, from among the examples given by the AUDTRS Framework, there is no reference to government, nor is the social and political context of research highlighted. This lack of attention to the role of government in researching religion, and also to the ethical implications and considerations that flow from this, no doubt partly results from the fact that until the last decade or so, public bodies and, especially departments within national government, had tended not to commission research relating to religion. This contrasts with the very substantial number of studies on ethnicity (in which religion sometimes played a subsidiary part) that have been a major feature of government-funded research during the past quarter of a century. However, from the watershed marked by The Satanic Verses<9>controversy onwards, religion has increasingly come onto the agenda of public policy - and, hence, onto the research agenda of government. Symbolic of this was the inclusion in the decennial Census of 2001, for the first time in England, Scotland and Wales, of questions on religious affiliation. <10> In parallel to this has been an increasing recognition by governments of all political complexions of the need for partnership with organisations in the voluntary and community sectors of civil society, and of the importance, within this, of religious organisations and groups. <11> The terrible events of 9/11 and 7/7 have further served to focus a governmental concern with, and indeed, aboutreligion, and particularly about Islam and Muslims, specifically particular kindsof Islam and kinds of Muslims. Thus it is no accident that it is at this point in time that we have seen the inception of the important and generally very welcome £7.5-£8.5 million research programme, sponsored jointly by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) on the theme of “Religion and Society”. Until recently, the existence and funding of such a programme would not have been very likely. The AHRC was not yet a full Research Council, and it was not so long ago that an Arts and Humanities Research Board did not even exist. Historically, the ESRC, in so far as it did take account of religion, tended to do so more frequently where it figured as of a kind of footnote to ethnicity. As the introductory description of the Religion and Society programme puts it: “This will be the first UK research programme to foster collaborative endeavours across the arts, humanities and social sciences in order to understand the interrelationships between religion and society.” <12> However, amidst the general good news of this development, it is worth looking a little more closely at the programme’s introductory description on the AHRC website. This states, “The programme will also aim to increase understanding amongst the wider public of these relationships” …all to the good, “contribute to policy and practice”…..well, OK….and “engage end users through collaboration” ….sounds helpful….but one should note that the collaboration proposed with “end users” is not just with “faith groups” and with “government departments”, but also with “the armed forces, police and security agencies.” <13> In view of widespread public opposition to the war in Iraq and concerns among many human rights groups about the erosion of civil liberties in the UK, it is important to ask how far any potential co-option of a research programme into the context of any so-called “War on Terror” could be seen as ethically problematic. Conversely, if the threat from global terrorism is judged to be substantial, might there be an ethical imperative to put one’s scholarly skills and experience at the service of the authorities involved in a military or similar conflict? This is precisely what many scholars have done at times of conflict, crisis and warfare in the past, an example of this being the historian and author of the remarkable multi-volume,A Study of History, Arnold Toynbee. <14> At an early stage in his career as an historian, Toynbee was the author of the scholarly and evidentially-based work on The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916 <15>. However, during part of the First World War, Toynbee also worked for the Political Intelligence Department of the British government, and was therefore also directly in the service of the Allied war effort. During this period, Toynbee drafted a propaganda pamphlet carrying Lord Bryce’s <16>name, under the title of Armenian Atrocities: The Murder of a Nation. He also wrote, with a preface by Lord Bryce, the pamphlet, The Murderous Tyranny of the Turks. <17> The relationship between his scholarly and evidential work and his involvement in Lord Bryce’s propaganda pamphlet is one that came to trouble Toynbee in later years. Thus Toynbee’s biographer, William McNeill, <18> comments, “Later, Toynbee came to feel that this lopsidedness was a betrayal of historical truth. His sympathies, in fact, reversed themselves, partly because he felt he had been unjust to the Turks and needed to make atonement.” Nevertheless, when the Second World War broke out, Toynbee’s previous misgivings about the relationship between his historical scholarship and his contribution to the propaganda effort did not deter him from working for the Foreign Research and Press Service, for which the government provided 80% of the initial budget, with the remainder being paid by the University of Oxford and the Royal Institute for International Affairs. Apart from during times of war, in the “(good?) old days” of “dual support” funding for research and teaching, academics generally did not need to consider such questions - at least not in such sharp focus. Government was the main source of research funding, but this was only at a distant remove. Higher education institutions, their general policies and practices had much more impact on the individual researcher. But with the growth among the Research Councils of programme driven research - which in itself is partly in response to a more instrumentalist understanding of research that has been adopted by government - the explicit steer of government has become ever more visible. In addition to this kind of programme-driven, Research Council funding, government - at local, regional, and national levels - is increasingly acting as a direct commissioning body for research that relates to religion. Such funding and emerging projects pose new ethical challenges, or at least renewed dimensions of old ones. In order to illustrate some of the issues that can arise when conducting projects of this kind, I will briefly refer to two “case studies” of research contracted with and for government in which I have been involved. TWO CASE STUDIES: HOME OFFICE AND ODPM The first is the Religious Discrimination in England and Wales research project, of which the author was project director, working together with a team of other colleagues at the University of Derby. This project was the first research of this type instituted from within government and it was commissioned through the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, taking place in 1999-2001. The project resulted in an interim report, Religious Discrimination in England and Wales: An Interim Report <19> that explored the parameters of the project, drawing upon more bibliographical, historical and theoretical approaches. There was also a final report - Religious Discrimination in England and Wales <20> - that contained the findings of the project’s fieldwork and questionnaire surveys. The second was a project concerned with reviewing the evidence base on faith communities. This was commissioned by the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and took place between 2004 and 2006, but with the bulk of the work being undertaken in 2005. In this project, the author was part of an informally constituted team of academics from the Universities of Birmingham, Derby, Oxford and Warwick, known as “the Mercia Group”. This project focussed specifically on a review of the available evidence base on the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh populations in relation to the strategic policy areas of the ODPM. These included housing supply and demand; decent places to live; tackling disadvantage; delivering better services; and promoting the development of the English regions. It also examined all of this in connection with the relationship between religion and belief and the other equalities strands in terms of ethnicity, gender, sexuality and disability. It consisted of a review of published and “grey” or unpublished (including unpublished reports and other documents) material from over the past decade. This was informed by a small number of background interviews with key sources and coupled with some primary analysis of the 2001 Census data on religion in relation to other key variables of relevance to the review. It issued in the report, Review of the Evidence Base on Faith Communities. <21> WORKING WITHIN GIVEN TERMS OF REFERENCE One of the key issues in undertaking research directly for the Government, and experienced in both of the “case study” projects, is that the terms of reference for such research are rarely, if ever, open to be determined by the researchers themselves. In other language, when proceeding with research in this mode, it is generally not possible to undertake “blue skies research.” Of course, the possibility of what might be called “research-determined research” is, these days, generally very restricted. Research Councils, and also charitable funding for social research by bodies such as Rowntree, increasingly distribute funds in relation to predetermined thematic priorities. In the case of the Research Councils, in particular, these priorities are not unrelated to the priorities of the national government of the day and/or (and perhaps increasingly) of the European Union. But in relation to Research Council programmes, while the broad parameters are laid down, it is usually open to the applicant to propose the research that they wish to undertake in terms of its specific aims and objectives. However, in contract research for government, the fact that government sets the terms of reference means that researchers are faced with ethical questions about the degree to which they feel they can with integrity, as scholars and as citizens, work within the kind of parameters that such terms of reference set for them. And there can be both explicit and implicit dimensions to this. Explicit terms of reference are generally published. Implicit ones are not, but may be no less significant. In general, government only spends public funds on specifically contracted research when there is at least an incipient policy direction already under way that it either wants to test and/or to justify. Thus, the Religious Discrimination Project was only commissioned when there was a sufficient head of steam building up around the issue for government to consider legislating. Indeed, by the time the research started, the European Union’s Amsterdam Treaty meant that the UK government was already committed to introducing legislation on discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, at least in the specific and important area of employment and vocational training. Put crudely, there can be a tendency for government to commission research when, by judicious use of terms of reference, it wants to try to secure the kind of outcomes of the research that it needs for public policy purposes. To highlight this, I would suggest, is not to be cynical or an advocate of conspiracy theory, but it is to be realistic. In other words, when working for government in this kind of research, one has to realise that government is often not looking for any advice or recommendations. There are, of course, occasions when government does look to academics to offer these as, for example, in the establishment Royal Commissions or formal Committees of Inquiry. But, often, advice and recommendation are ruled as being outside a research project’s terms of reference. For example, in the Religious Discrimination Project, there were four major terms of reference of which the final one was: “to identify the broad range of possible policy options for dealing with religious discrimination”. <22> The key word here is “identify”. This was descriptive rather than interpretive in intent. In other words, put crudely, we were commissioned to identify and list what such options might be, but not to take the further step and, as academics, to make recommendations concerning these options, or even to evaluate them. In the ODPM project, after we produced the first draft of our report, the civil servants with whom we liaised underlined to us that it was not for us to make recommendations – that was the job of government, advised by civil servants. One can, of course, understand a government’s wish to separate out results from the interpretation of them. However, as anyone who is alive to hermeneutical issues knows, distinguishing between things identified as “facts” and things understood to be “interpretations” is not the simplistic exercise that either popular understandings or more “scientistic” models of research might assume. Thus, it is naïve to suggest that one can purely report, even though in relation to a project ostensively concerned with reviewing the evidence base. At the same time, during the ODPM project, as we reflected upon the process in which we were engaged, it became clear that the very act of selecting material, the amount selected on each topic, and the order in which the material is placed in a final report are all matters that are informed by evaluative judgement and can convey messages about at least implicit recommendations. Of course, one tries to exercise such judgement in a balanced and informed, as well as rigorous and honest, way. But the element of evaluation and of judgment can never entirely be eliminated in an attempt to achieve the degree of “purity” of identification and recording of evidence that would, in reality, only be illusory. CONTRACTUAL AND LEGAL CONSTRAINTS Other key factors in working for government in researching religion that can give rise to ethical considerations relate to contractual and legal dimensions. In relation to these, the research team that undertook the Home Office’s Religious Discrimination project had to sign the Official Secrets Act. Furthermore, the terms of the contract were quite restrictive with regard to what one could disclose about the project while it was taking place. And intellectual property and copyright for the findings of the research were vested in Crown Copyright. This, therefore, included a requirement to seek permission to publish other materials from the project, which continues down until today. Interestingly, in the ODPM project, our assumption had been that copyright would also rest with the Crown. However, when the report appeared on the ODPM website it did so with a copyright statement that recognised copyright in the content as being vested in the University of Warwick (as the primary contracting organisation through which colleagues in other Universities within the informal “Mercia Group” were subcontracted). Only copyright in the formatting of the report was vested in the Crown, and not copyright with regard to its content. Such contractual and legal frameworks highlight potential ethical questions about the relationship between research involving commercial and government confidentiality and the value of the democratic openness that - at least in theory – is espoused by the scholarly community. Of course, this is something that academics undertaking contract research in the area of business studies have long had to wrestle with. And the relationships among contracts, the law, academic integrity in scholarship and academic institutional processes can give rise to unexpected spin-offs. Thus, for example, in relation to the Religious Discrimination project, under the provisions of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise it was possible, with the agreement of the Home Office (which they gave) to submit into the RAE the manuscript of the Religious Discrimination project’s draft report. However, the final published text of the report contained some changes from the original draft considered in the 2001 RAE. As will be obvious, the process (which is not at all uncommon in contract research) of engaging the client in an opportunity for question and feedback before the finalisation of a report may, in itself, raise ethical issues in relation to the integrity of the research, and to which careful consideration needs to be given. In more recent times, the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 has opened up further issues in relation to research that has been funded by public bodies. This is because - as is the case at my own University – many University codes of good scientific practice in research require retention of project materials for a specified number of years. At the same time, under the Freedom of Information Act, requests can be made to access some of this material, which is what happened to myself recently when a House of Commons researcher asked for copies of earlier drafts of the finally published Religious Discrimination project report, thus raising a range of potential ethical and other issues. STAKEHOLDERS: IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT Paragraph 2.5 of the AUDTRS Code of Practice picks up on the theme of “stakeholder” and says, “Due regard for the interests of stakeholders is important. Teachers and researchers can be expected to show awareness of these interested parties. The use of informants and religious communities for study creates a situation where teachers, students and researchers clearly benefit from their relationship, but due consideration of ‘empowerment’ is important, ensuring that informants and communities ‘get something back’ from their work.” <23> One dimension of being under contract is the consciousness that one is accountable to the contractor. A potential concern when contracted to government is the possibility of political interference in the research, its outcomes and/or its dissemination. Having now been involved in two such major national projects, I have to say that in relation to the actual conductof the research and its results, on neither occasion have I had any experience of direct political interference from either politicians themselves or from the civil servants who are responsible for policy. What has, however, been challenging on both occasions, has been dealing with a government department’s own in-house research staff. From the perspective of government departments these in-house research staff act as “managers” responsible for delivering the outcomes of outsourced research services to internal “policy customers”. In the case of both “case study” projects recounted here, the in-house research staff made important contributions to the projects in terms of constructive critical feedback on proposed research instruments and draft reports, etc. However, there were also tensions between the perhaps more traditionalist sociological background of government research staff and the generally more inter-disciplinary approaches and specific knowledge and expertise found among the two project teams. These included, respectively, scholars in Religious Studies, Education, Sociology, Anthropology and Law, and then scholars in Religious Studies, Education, Geography, Sociology, Race and Ethnic Studies. While, as compared with our own research teams, research staff based in the relevant government departments clearly had extensive experience in policy related research, it was equally clear that they had a relative lack of specific knowledge and experience in dealing with religious traditions, communities and groups. Perhaps especially because of the use (and potential abuse) that can be made of one’s research, in researching for government one is also very much aware of one’s accountability as a researcher to the individuals and the communities whom one is researching. As a consequence of this, during the the Religious Discrimination Research Project it often felt as though one were walking a tightrope between the requirements of government, the expectations of religious (and especially Muslim) groups, one’s own academic integrity, and the lurking presence of the media. From the beginning of the Religious Discrimination project the community dimension was not easy. Thus a report in the Muslim newspaper Q News entitled “Discrimination Survey Freezes Out Muslims”, quoted a charge that the selection of the research team at Derby was a case of an “inside-job” appointment. <24> In this report, questions were asked about why the contract had been awarded to a team that did not include Muslims and had not been awarded to a Muslim research group. In fact, this was an instance of assumption concerning the religious affiliation or otherwise of the group of researchers of a kind that, in different guises, we often had to face throughout the course of the project. This included questions from the National Secular Society, which seemed to assume that project staff would all be personally religious, when the team included at least one Religious Studies academic who understood himself as an atheist. GIVE US THE FACTS AND FIGURES! Ministers and other politicians cannot be experts on all issues and so generally need to be briefed in clear and simple terms on a range of matters. Because of this, as noted earlier, the terms of reference of government commissioned projects often convey a wish - that can often strike academics as naïve - for researchers to confine themselves to “the facts” of an area to be researched. Politicians love what they like to call “hard data”. “Give us the facts and figures”, they cry! There is also the potential problem that arises from the need for government to deal in practical policy options. This can result in a drive towards a simplified summary that can often feel at variance with an academic’s awareness of the complexity of real issues. However, from a government perspective, many academics do not really understand the requirements of government and prefer to conduct research that does not connect with “real-world” practical issues. In connection with this, a 2003 National Audit Office report on Getting the Evidence: Using Research in Policy-Making <25> painted a picture suggesting a gulf between UK academics and policy-makers. This report argued that academics have a poor understanding of policy questions; that the results of research are not easily accessible; that they lack short-term relevance; that academics are poor communicators; and that dissemination is grossly undervalued in academia. One can, of course, understand the reasons for such criticism and there may sometimes be validity to certain aspects of it. But might it also be that academic researchers understand that the framing and delivery of policy questions inevitably shapes the content of expected answers and that, perhaps, some of the questions should themselves be questioned. So when politicians ask for hard data, and get statistics, what are they actually getting? Just how “hard” is this hard data? Is there something of an illusion in the apparent clarity conveyed, especially by quantitative research and quotable percentage figures? Those old enough amongst us will be familiar with the Miss World Competitions where the women contestants used to be introduced by means of what were called their “vital statistics”. Today, many women would protest that measurements of their physiological proportions represent an inadequate reductionist objectification of their vital reality! And, of course, even the Miss World Competition did go beyond such statistics. These women competitors were at least asked questions about who they were, what they did, where they came from etc. In other words, even this form of abstracted “statistics” was contextualised. In relation to the plea to “give us the statistical facts” of religion, quantitative data might well be relevant - and it is probably under-used and under-played in the academic study of religion, at least in the UK. But the question needs to be asked about how far such data reflect the living reality of religions and their practitioners. In other words, about how far such statistical data reflects what might be called the “vitalstatistics of religion”? MEDIA COVERAGE Having undertaken work that is believed to be of public significance one does want to ensure that its findings are made public. In the Religious Discrimination research project it appeared that government also wished to do this, the Home Office having prepared its own press release about the project alongside that prepared by the University of Derby’s Press Office. But such coverage is notoriously at the mercy of other news events. Therefore, despite the mass media having closely followed the progress of the Religious Discrimination Project, the publication of its outcomes in 2001 unfortunately coincided with the major outbreak of foot and mouth disease. As a result, attention inevitably focussed elsewhere, with the report achieving relatively minimal national media attention. By contrast, with our Review of the Evidence Base on Faith Communities project, the government did not itself promote the findings of what was seen as more of an internal exercise to inform the policy development of the ODPM. However, my own University did have an interest in publicising this <26> since it has recently been highlighted that, even though the University of Derby is not a research-intensive University, over 80% of its media coverage has been to do with the research, consultancy and scholarship undertaken by our staff and students. The coverage of the ODPM project report that emerged shows the perils that can occur when undertaking policy research in the public eye. For example, when figures for Muslim “economic activity” were quoted from the ODPM report - highlighting that around half of Muslims aged 25+ are not engaged in economic activity in the formal labour market, the media coverage often misunderstood and, as a result, misreported, this. Thus the news bulletins of the local BBC Radio Derby took the as relating to Muslim “unemployment” rather than to “economic activity”. While Muslim unemployment is also high relative to that of other groups considered in relation to religion, the data and their implications are quite different. Fortunately, in this instance, we heard the relevant reports on the local news broadcasts and were able to contact the radio station to point out their error and to ask them to correct this in subsequent reports, which they did. However, there is also the issue that, even when reported correctly, it is possible that one’s findings may be misinterpreted and/or used differently in a different context. Thus one of the media opportunities that followed our ODPM project press release was an extended interview on the Al-Arabiyah satellite television station, broadcasting to several million viewers in the Middle East. In presenting the report’s findings in this context, one was aware that the very real issues of discrimination and disadvantage as recognised in the UK could become magnified out of proportion within the context of an audience located in a different context and who may be inclined to interpret the findings through the lense of global conspiracy theories in relation to Islam and Muslims. For academics entering the media arena, as an article by Harriet Swain in the Times HigherEducation Supplement <27> points out, there is a range of rules that need to be followed. As highlighted in Swain’s piece, Nic Mitchell, an executive member of the Higher Education External Relations Association offered the advice that, when talking to journalists, one should break things down into three or four points. This is because news reports (as distinct from documentary programmes and interviews) do not generally allow for nuanced presentations of what are complex matters. Generally, this runs against the grain for academics who, from our PhD theses onwards, are schooled in the importance of making qualifications to statements. However, to fail to understand the opportunities and constraints of the medium is both to miss the chance to communicate with a wider than usual audience, and to avoid relying on others to (perhaps incorrectly) summarise one’s work. QUESTIONS AND ISSUES There are, then, many ethical issues raised when researching religion under government contract. Such issues may lead academics to avoid this kind of research altogether. For myself, I would argue that what is critically important in this is ethical awareness. This is because researching religions there is not, and never has been, a zone of ethical purity even, or especially, when undertaking research among the “dreaming spires”. For myself, I choose to remain engaged in such an enterprise because, though perhaps underplayed in the pragmatic and sometimes anti-intellectual environment of UK life, it has always seemed to me an important part of the academic’s role that one should try to make a contribution to public policy and debate. This does, of course, require one to be willing to take at least some risks. These risks include the challenge of trying to communicate often complex and ambiguous findings and ideas in a more straightforward and accessible fashion. They also involve the need to come down on one side or another of complex and messy arguments about practical policy decisions, even if only provisionally. This is to recognise that such decisions still need to be made even while debate legitimately continues around them. The notion of researching religion “for government” also needs unpacking. In one sense it reflects a form of research conducted within the parameters of a specific contractual relationship. While there is to some extent freedom to propose methods for the conduct of such research, it is very different to work within predetermined terms of reference (which can implicitly indicate at least the range of possible answers) than to propose a research project from scratch on a blank piece of paper. Thus “working for government” in this sense does carry constraints. Nevertheless, while some kinds of research are, as a contractual “end” done “for government”, as a “telos” one may also be engaging in them as part of an ethical commitment to individuals and groups, particularly those who are relatively disadvantaged within our society. But there may be a need for selectivity. For myself, I would only ever tender for government commissioned research that connected with something to which as a scholar, a citizen (and, in my case also a religious believer) I had a life concern and commitment. While some may see this as a disadvantage, and possibly as even ethically problematic I see such an approach both as advantageous and as being shaped by an ethical imperative. At the same time, in my view it remains vitally important for higher education institutions to have the ability internally to create spaces where research which falls outside the parameters of accepted wisdom can be defined and conducted, even while acknowledging that institutions themselves are hardly value-free zones. And, of course, quite apart from institutional contexts, there is the ethical ambiguity surrounding the individual researcher, who may undertake research “for its own sake” while also motivated to produce research outcomes that enable one to build a career and/or secure a promotion. Individual academics can, in principle, be as prone to self-serving motivations as politicians. Reputation can often be as important to an academic as electoral and party popularity is to a politician, and both can be secured in ethically contestable ways. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS In closing, I am sure that colleagues who belong to a body of scholars that is dedicated to the importance of the non-confessional study of religion might have noted and wondered about the confessional language referenced in this paper’s title. In closing, I want to acknowledge that I chose such a title deliberately. This was firstly because, while I strongly support the importance of the non-confessional study of religion (particularly in publicly-funded institutions), as a citizen I am also one who personally affirms that there is that which “goes beyond” the things with which government is or can be concerned. Furthermore, I would want to argue that, on balance, this sense of the “beyond” in public life can play an important part in preventing the state and its forms of government from the danger of practical self-deification. Secondly, I chose the title because I think that the story recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels <28> of the Christian scriptures - and to which the first part of the title of this article alludes - also has something to say on the ethics of working for government in researching religion that we might do well to consider. As recorded in Mark’s Gospel, the story goes that: And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to entrap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Jesus said to them, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at him. There has, of course, been a history of scriptural exegesis that has placed this story within a hermeneutical framework that reflects a Lutheran “two kingdoms” theology and ideology. However, such a reading would generally not find favour among contemporary New Testament scholars. Rather, the story is now more often seen in terms of Jesus trying to evade the trap that his questioners were trying to lay for him in the way in which they originally constructed their questions. Today a question of the kind that was posed to Jesus – the “trap” question designed to catch out the respondent - would probably be the kind of question a media interviewer might ask of a public figure. It is a question that, by its framing and presuppositions, tries to force a response according to the paradigms and alternatives of a received and conventional wisdom, but in which the giving of either predetermined option would lead to a controversy that could become diversionary from the key issues at stake. By contrast, the response attributed to Jesus is an example of the application of ethical wisdom that I would like to suggest is perhaps of some help when considering the contemporary ethics of “researching religion for government.” What the wise saying of Jesus, to “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” does is to promote active ethical reflection and to keep open an ongoing ethical tension, rather than allowing the very real dilemmas involved to be deflected into apparent ”solutions”. Such apparent “solutions” can, unfortunately, close off ethical tension and lead to self-justification rather than to an ongoing sense of ethical awareness and responsibility. In researching religion for government there is no rule-book by which to proceed. But there is also no need for professional paralysis. Rather, there is a need for researchers to continue to be willing to undertake such research that, through its engagement, has a direct impact on public life. Nevertheless, it is important that it is done on the basis of applying to such research on religion for government what Ninian Smart used to call the need for “axionalysis” in the wider study of religion. As Smart put it in his book, The Phenomenon of Religion: ….it seems to be part of the procedures for one who approaches a religion that he or she should stimulate some degree of self-awareness. It is as though we should undergo axioanalysis - a kind of evaluational equivalent to psychoanalysis: what has been called more broadly ”values clarification”. Or perhaps we might call it ”own-worldview analysis”. <29> In conclusion, there follow some questions that I use in a regular research training seminar that I run at the University of Derby on the topic of “The Societal View of Research/The Uses Made of Research.” While having some wider relevance, they are also pertinent, I believe, to researching religion for government: Who funds your research? Are some forms of funding incompatible with some kinds of research? How does the source of the funding impact on the processes and content of your research? Is your research seen in the wider society as generally useful; generally “use-less” (in an instrumental sense); or potentially dangerous? Do different “stakeholders” and/or “interest groups” see your research differently? Do you feel you have any responsibility for the “uses” that may be made of your research by others? If you do feel such a responsibility, what can you do to address this? Hopefully, by asking these and other questions like them, it will be possible for colleagues to engage in “researching religion for government” in a way that is self-aware, ethically-responsible and thus also appropriately scholarly. =========================================== NOTES <1> Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies, “Framework of Professional Practice”, British Association for the Study of Religions, Bulletin, No. 104, March (2005), pp. 22-25. <2> Chryssides, G., “Religious Studies and Professional Ethics: Towards an AUDTRS Code of Practice”, British Association for the Study of Religions, Bulletin, No. 96, June (2002), pp. 21-22. <3> British Sociological Association, Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association, 2002. See http://www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/63, retrieved on 26.8.2006. <4> British Psychological Society, Ethics and Code of Conduct (2006), retrieved on 26.8.2006. <5> United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy, Code of Ethics.(n.d.), retrieved on 26.8.2006. <6> Battin, M., Ethics in the Sanctuary: Examining the Practices of Organised Religion, London: Yale University, 1990. <7> Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies, p. 25. <8> Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies, p. 24. <9> Rushdie, S., The Satanic Verses, London: Viking Penguin, 1988. <10> Weller, P., “Identity, Politics and the Future(s) of Religion in the UK: The Case of the Religion Questions in the 2001 Decennial Census”, Journal of Contemporary Religion. Volume 19, No. 1, January (2004), pp. 3-21. <11> Weller, P., “Religions and Social Capital: Theses on Religion(s), State(s) and Society(ies): With Particular Reference to the United Kingdom and the European Union”, in Journal of International Migration and Integration, Volume XI, No. 2, Spring (2005), pp. 271-289. <12> Arts and Humanities Research Council, Religion and Society Research Programme. http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/ahrb/website/images/4_97918.doc, retrieved on 26.8.2006. <13> Op cit., Religion and Society Research Programme, retrieved on. 26.8.2006. <14> See abridgements of Toynbee, A., A Study of History: Abridgement of Volumes I-VI by D.C. Somervell, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946; and Toynbee, A., A Study of History: Abridgement of Volumes VII-X by D.C. Somervell, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957. <15> Toynbee, A., The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1916. <16> Toynbee, A., Armenian Atrocities: The Murder of a Nation. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915. <17> Toynbee, A., The Murderous Tyranny of the Turks. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1917. <18> McNeill, W., Arnold Toynbee: A Life. London: Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 74. <19> Weller, P. and Purdam, K., Religious Discrimination in England and Wales: An Interim Report. Derby: University of Derby, 2000. <20> Weller, P.; Feldman, A.; and Purdam, L., et al., Religious Discrimination in England and Wales, Home Office Research Study 220, London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 2001. <21> Beckford, J.; Gale, R.; Owen, D.; Peach, C.; Weller, P.W., Review of the Evidence Base on Faith Communities. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2006. <22> Weller, P.; Feldman, A.; and Purdam, L., et al., Religious Discrimination in England and Wales, Home Office Research Study 220, London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 2001, p. 22. <23> Op. cit, Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies, p. 24. <24> Q News, “Discrimination Survey Freezes Out Muslims,” Q News, July 1999, p. 13. <25> National Audit Office, Getting the Evidence: Using Research in Policy-Making. London: National Audit Office, 2003. 26> See University of Derby Press Office, “Work, Life and Prayer. 2006”. http://www.derby.ac.uk/press-office/news/work-life-and-prayer-2006 , retrieved on 18.03.2007. <27> Swain, H., “Are You Ready for Your Close-Up”, The Higher, 19.5.2006. See http://www.thes.co.uk/search/story.aspx <28> Gospel of Mark, chapter 12 v. 13-17; Gospel of Matthew chapter 22 v. 15-22; and Gospel of Luke chapter 20, v. 20-26. <29> Smart, N., The Phenomenon of Religion, London: Macmillan, 1973, p.265. © Paul Weller 2007