Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Paradigm shift in religious education? A reply to Gearon, or when is a paradigm not a paradigm?

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Jackson, Robert (2018) Paradigm shift in religious education? A reply to Gearon, or when is a paradigm not a paradigm? Journal of Beliefs and Values, 39 (3). pp. 379-395. doi:10.1080/13617672.2018.1469327

[img]
Preview
PDF
WRAP-paradigm-shift-religious-education-Gearon-Jackson-2018.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer.

Download (627Kb) | Preview
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2018.1469327

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

This article responds to Liam Gearon’s reply to my article Misrepresenting Religious Education’s Past and Present in Looking Forward: Gearon Using Kuhn’s Concepts of Paradigm, Paradigm Shift and Incommensurability. In maintaining my critique of Gearon’s use of Kuhn’s terminology, I question his claim that ‘incommensurability’ does not necessarily imply ‘incompatibility’, and challenge his view that ‘faith-based’ approaches to religious education and ‘inclusive’ approaches are incommensurable and deeply incompatible. I also question Gearon’s placement of particular scholars within his constructed paradigms, noting that those identified by Gearon with specific paradigms do not necessarily share the same views concerning the nature of religious education and its pedagogy, and that various scholars, associated by Gearon with particular paradigms, draw on a variety of disciplines in their work. I argue that Gearon’s construction of paradigms is a device he uses for ‘separation’, leading to his misrepresentation of the work of researchers. I argue for the benefits of collaboration, in research, teaching and policy development. Finally, I give reasons for writing the article, which do not result from any engagement in ‘paradigm wars’, and I draw attention to pressing issues relating to the future of ‘inclusive’ religious education which are not addressed by Gearon.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: L Education > LB Theory and practice of education > LB1603 Secondary Education. High schools
Q Science > Q Science (General)
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Centre for Education and Industry
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Religious education, Gearon, Liam, Kuhn, Thomas S.
Journal or Publication Title: Journal of Beliefs and Values
Publisher: Routledge
ISSN: 1361-7672
Official Date: 17 May 2018
Dates:
DateEvent
17 May 2018Published
23 April 2018Accepted
Volume: 39
Number: 3
Page Range: pp. 379-395
DOI: 10.1080/13617672.2018.1469327
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Publisher Statement: “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Beliefs and Values on 17/05/2018, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13617672.2018.1469327
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access
Related URLs:
  • Publisher

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us