The academic study of religions and integrative religious education in Europe

Abstract

The article provides an overview of the book Integrative religious education in Europe: A study‐of‐religions approach (2007). It introduces the notion of ‘integrative religious education (RE)’, relating to education about different religions in religiously mixed classrooms, as opposed to separative confessional approaches. The article presents some results of my analysis of recent approaches to integrative RE, mainly from England and Sweden. The analysis focuses on aims of integrative RE, the notion of religion and the representation of religions, teaching methods, and the notion of education. Building on recent theory and methodology in the study of religions (Religionswissenschaft) and education, I propose a European framework for integrative RE. The article concludes with a description of recent school‐related initiatives in the study of religions at an international level.

Keywords:

• integrative religious education
• the study of religions
• Europe
• England
• Sweden
• religious studies

Introduction: integrative religious education in Europe

It is well known that the landscape of religious education (RE) in Europe is diverse and that it has been transformed in many countries in recent years. A number of publications have mapped the situation of RE in individual European countries (e.g. Kuyk et al. 2007; Jackson et al. 2007) and there have been initiatives to find common guidelines for RE at international levels (e.g. OSCE 2007). In Integrative religious education in Europe. A study‐of‐religions approach (Alberts 2007), I take a slightly different approach to education about religions in Europe. Rather than following traditional models of distinguishing between confessional and non‐confessional RE (e.g. Jensen 2002), or between education into religion, education about religion and education from religion (e.g. Schreiner 2005, 3), I have distinguished between integrative RE and separative RE. This distinction takes the classroom situation as its starting point. It regards the decision whether RE is designed for heterogeneous groups of pupils with various religious or non‐religious backgrounds, or whether it addresses a particular group of pupils selected according to their particular religious backgrounds as an important distinctive feature for different models of RE. In the first case, children with different religious and non‐religious backgrounds are integrated in one classroom and learn together about different religions (integrative RE). In the second case, they are separated according to the religious tradition they belong to and learn about ‘their own’ and often also about ‘other’ religions in separate groups, usually from a teacher who is authorised by the religious community which is, often in cooperation with state institutions, responsible for this particular version of RE (separative RE). RE as taught in most German federal states is a good example of the separative approach. ¹ Children (or, up to a certain age, their parents) can traditionally choose between Protestant and Catholic confessional RE, which is taught in separate classrooms. For children who do not wish to participate in confessional RE, most states have introduced so‐called ‘alternative subjects’, such as Ethik (ethics) in Bavaria and Hessen or Werte und Normen (values and norms) in Lower Saxony, which present a non‐confessional perspective on ethics and religions. In some federal states, there is also Jewish RE and, very recently, several attempts have been made to establish Muslim RE (see Schreiner 2007, 85).

Integrative RE as a compulsory subject can be found in some northern European countries, dating as far back, for example, as the 1960s/1970s in Sweden and England. Particularly with respect to recent debates about opportunities and limitations of integrative RE, it is useful to look at the development of these subjects in England and Sweden, which have been quite different from one another. While in Sweden the character of RE changed with various national curriculum reforms from the 1960s to the 1990s, in England, it was more a development from the bottom upwards, with more and more locally agreed syllabuses including the study of different religions, an approach which was not formally legalised before the Education Reform Act of 1988. In Sweden, the different names that integrative RE received in the second half of the twentieth century reflect different approaches to the subject. The name changed from kristendom (Christianity) to kristendomskunskap (knowledge about Christianity) in 1962, to religionskunskap (knowledge about religion) in 1965/1969, ² to människans frågor inför livet og tillvaron and religionskunskap (human questions in the face of life and existence and knowledge about religion) in 1980, and back to religionskunskap in 1994. ³ The different names highlight different foci, first in the direction of a more detached approach to Christianity, and later in the inclusion of various religions. The focus on existential questions, which was very prominent in the 1980 syllabus, was integrated in a more general concept of education about religion in 1994, when the subject was made fully compulsory, without any possibility of opting out. Whereas in Sweden, where the National Agency of Education (Skolverket) is responsible for the syllabuses, the responsibility for the syllabuses in England has been with local education authorities, resulting in a greater variety of concepts and more gradual changes up to the reform of 1988 (Education Reform Act, see UK Parliament 1988), the model syllabuses of 1994 (SCAA 1994a, 1994b) and the non‐statutory national framework for RE of 2004 (QCA 2004). In the English context, co‐operation between religious and educational institutions is institutionalised, be it at the level of the agreed syllabus conferences or the Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education (SACREs), or at the national level, where representatives of various religious communities were consulted during the processes in which the national documents for RE were produced. ⁴

The present variety of approaches to integrative RE in England, Sweden, Norway and other countries shows that the integrative model is far from uniform. A closer analysis of the individual approaches reveals that there are significant differences with respect to, for example, the aims and contents of the subject, the underlying notions of religion and education, and the representation of religions. In the following sections, I would like to demonstrate these differences with examples from England and Sweden, evaluating the different approaches from a study‐of‐religions perspective. After that, I will sketch my suggestion for a European framework for integrative RE, based on the comparative analysis of the examples and drawing on theory and methodology in the academic study of religions and education. Furthermore, I will argue that the academic study of religions, which has until now not been in the forefront in discussions about RE, is an indispensible discipline of reference for integrative RE, together with general educational science. I will describe recent European initiatives in the academic study of religions to find an approach to the field of education and to develop subject‐related didactics. Apart from the update on European initiatives in the academic study of religions, the article is based on my book (Alberts 2007), in which I have analysed material published up to 2006.

Analysis of recent approaches to integrative religious education

My analysis of recent approaches to integrative RE in England and Sweden is based on written sources of different kinds, for example, official documents (such as laws and syllabuses), academic literature, and teachers’ manuals and textbooks for RE. In the English context, I have analysed the following academic approaches to RE in depth (Alberts 2007, 111–210): the Westhill project (e.g. Read, Rudge and Teece 1992; Rudge 2000), the Religion in the Service of the Child project, the A Gift to the Child approach (e.g. Grimmitt et al. 1991; Hull 2000), the experiential approach (e.g. Hammond et al. 1990; Hay 2000), the interpretive approach (e.g. Jackson 1997; Nesbitt 2002), thecritical approach (e.g. Wright 2000), the constructivist approach (Grimmitt 2000a), the narrative approach (e.g. Erricker and Erricker 2000), the Chichester project (e.g. Erricker 1995; Brown 2000) and the Stapleford project (Cooling 1994, 2000). In addition, I have looked at the history of integrative RE in England, for example, the influence of Ninian Smart and the Shap Working Party for World Religions in Education, and at its present organisation, including the legal framework, syllabuses and guidelines (Alberts 2007, 86–110). In the Swedish context, I have structured the material according to three different types of sources: official documents, academic literature and teaching material. My analysis of these English and Swedish approaches to integrative RE focuses on the following aspects: (1) aims of integrative RE; (2) the notion of religion and the representation of religions; and (3) teaching methods and the notion of education.

Aims of integrative RE

In England and Sweden, the integrative approach to teaching about religions, in contrast to the separative approach, is regarded as an important element of education, because it provides a common arena where children with different cultural and religious backgrounds learn together and thereby also learn to live with each other, despite the different worldviews they may have. In Sweden, knowledge about different religions and worldviews is regarded as a prerequisite for forming one’s own worldview, be it religious or non‐religious. School education in general is regarded as a means of assisting children in becoming well‐informed and responsible individuals, respecting their own and others’ rights as citizens in a plural democracy. In line with this, the approach to RE is emancipatory, encouraging pupils to form their own views about religions and worldviews. The general plural framework makes room for the study of different religious and non‐religious interpretations of life, with a focus on ethical questions.

In England, the aims of integrative RE have always been contested. Three major approaches can be identified: (1) knowledge and understanding of different religious traditions; (2) mutual respect and harmony in a multicultural society; and (3) personal, moral and spiritual development of the pupils (Everington 2000). In different approaches to RE, each of these aims is given different emphasis. In contrast to the Swedish model, the emphasis on ‘spiritual development’ in a number of English approaches is interesting. It may be asked whether the concepts of religion and spirituality can be separated so that this aim does not prioritise religious worldviews over secular ones, ascribing to spirituality an inherent value that the secular world lacks (see Alberts 2007, 294).

Even though there is some broad consensus that the approach to integrative RE cannot be the approach of any particular religion, not all English approaches assert that the aims of RE cannot be religious aims. Most visibly, the experiential approach pursues a religious project, attempting to guide the pupils on their way to the experience of the sacred. This is clearly problematic in a plural classroom where the existence of the sacred and the positive value of experiencing it cannot be regarded as given (see Hammond et al. 1990, 20–22; for my criticism see Alberts 2007, 137–141).

However, we can also observe in the national model syllabuses that the limitations of a secular approach to religions are easily transgressed. The skills and processes suggested for RE include ‘synthesis’, which is further explained as ‘linking significant features of religion together in a coherent pattern’ and ‘connecting different aspects of life into a meaningful whole’ (SCAA 1994a, 5). The former quotation is reminiscent of the attempt by phenomenologists of religion to construe ‘religion as such’ behind the visible phenomena in empirical religion, an approach which may be called theologically universalist. The latter quotation sounds even more clearly like the classical work of theologians, especially as it is presented in the context of the two overall attainment targets ‘learning about religions’ and ‘learning from religion’ (SCAA 1994a). Most academic approaches to RE in England, however, pay attention to the generally secular character of the subject, which is needed if RE is designed for children with various religious and non‐religious backgrounds. ⁵

The notion of religion and the representation of religions

There is a close connection between the notion of religion on which an approach to RE is based and the way religions are represented in that approach. In Swedish RE contexts, ‘religion’ is understood in a wide sense, including different religions, worldviews and views of life (livsåskådningar), in contrast to the traditional focus on ‘principal religions’ in much of English RE, particularly in the model syllabuses and the national framework for RE (SCAA 1994a, 1994b, 1994c; QCA 2004). Some English approaches to RE are based on the classical phenomenological notion of religion, used, for example, by its prominent exponents Rudolf Otto (1917) and Mircea Eliade (1957), referring to religion as related to the experience of ‘the holy’. This is problematic in an integrative context, because the recent study of religions has shown that these approaches are based on religious presuppositions (as, for example, the existence of ‘the holy’) and can therefore not be the basis for the representation of religions in a secular framework. ⁶

The A Gift to the Child approach, for example, refers directly to Otto’s terminology regarding the religious items to be presented in the classroom as numina (Hull 2000, 115; cf. Otto 1917). The classical phenomenological notion of religion lies also at the heart of the experiential approach. Essentialist understandings of religion that aim at affirming the ultimate value of ‘real’ religion, however, conflict with the empirical ambivalence of religion. Religions are just not always nice, beautiful and harmonious. The attempt to separate the more unpleasant aspects of religions from an idealised ‘essence’ of religion is a theological construct that ignores the intrinsic interrelatedness of the various aspects of empirical religion. If RE is based on such a non‐empirical construct of religion, the representation of religions in RE might be far remote from how children encounter religion in the media or in their daily lives.

The ‘liberal consensus’ about the experiential‐expressive model for RE, referring to a ‘generic religious experience’, which is widespread in the English context, has been criticised by Andrew Wright. He has demonstrated convincingly that RE based on this model is a patronising neo‐confessional framework depriving children of opportunities for authentic understanding beyond this particular religious philosophy (Wright 1996, 2000). Traditional explicitly or implicitly theological concepts of religions are challenged also in some other recent approaches to RE. In the interpretive approach, the three layer model individual, membership group and wider religious tradition is used (Jackson 1997, 65f) in order to find a more flexible approach to religion and RE, taking account of religion in different social contexts. In the narrative approach, post‐modern criticism is used for a radical reassessment of the ‘subject matter’ of RE and its now often implicitly religious overall framework. Clive Erricker criticises the notion of ‘tradition’ as a prominent feature of English RE, asking why RE ought to reproduce the grand narratives of religions, thereby also reproducing existent power relations and orthodoxy, silencing the small narratives of the children (Erricker 2000; see also Erricker and Erricker 2000).

In Sweden, the concept livsåskådning (view of life) has helped to find a broad secular concept of religion for RE. It widens the horizon so that traditions that are not commonly regarded as ‘religion’ are included in the subject religionskunskap, for example, the scientific worldview, socialism and existentialism (see, e.g., Thulin and Elm 1995, 132–3). At the same time, livsåskådning serves as a hermeneutical key for the study of different religious or non‐religious phenomena (cf. Almén 2000, 67–71). For integrative RE, it seems to be impossible to define the subject matter on the base of a distinction between religious and secular views of life (where the former would be included and the latter excluded), without falling back into essentialist notions of religion. If livsåskådning is regarded as a superordinate concept which includes religious and secular views of life, it can provide a valuable starting point for integrative RE.

The notion of religion on which concepts for integrative RE are based, is directly related to the representation of religion. In Sweden, the focus shifted from livsfrågor (questions of life) as a starting point for the study and representation of religions to livsåskådning (view of life). ⁷ This somewhat broader concept made possible an approach to religions focusing especially on concepts, ethics and contemporary religion. Important debates about the representation of religion in Swedish RE relate, for example, to the question of whether the focus should be on elite religion or local empirical religion, for example, in a Hindu context (cf. Almén 2000, 80). Another important issue is the representation of religions in textbooks for RE (cf., e.g., Härenstam 1993, which was the Swedish contribution to the European project on Islam in textbooks; see also Falaturi 1990). Kjell Härenstam, for example, bases the development of his own concept for teaching Buddhism in RE on a close analysis of the representation of Tibetan Buddhism in Swedish textbooks for RE in the second half of the twentieth century (Härenstam 2000).

The question of whether religions should be studied ‘thematically’ (comparatively) or ‘systematically’ (separatively, one after another) gained some popularity in the English debate about RE. In this debate, a generic concept of religion, which regards religions as essentially similar, was frequently linked to the thematic approach, which in the tradition of the phenomenology of religions includes the study of various phenomena in different religious traditions. The debate about the ‘thematic approach’ has often focused, on the one hand, on the usefulness of such comparisons and on the question of whether there is enough attention to the meaning of the phenomena in their original contexts (Rudge 2000, 102). On the other hand, a concept of different religions as discrete, incompatible (and incomparable) entities was linked to the ‘systematic’ approach, which does not include direct comparisons. These links, which imply that thematic and systematic representations of religions are mutually exclusive alternatives, however, unnecessarily narrow the perspective on the representation of religions in RE. If reflection on different concepts of religion is included in integrative RE – not only on the academic meta‐level but also as a subject matter for RE – the practical issue of whether religions ought to be presented thematically or systematically loses its ideological character and the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches can be discussed. Awareness of the presuppositions and implications of either approach also allows a useful combination of the two.

The English context is also an interesting case for the representation of Christianity in a changed educational environment. In Europe, many models of integrative RE have been developed out of formerly broadly Christian models and a majority of Christian theologians have responsibility also for integrative models, which are explicitly non‐religious. The new perspectives on and methodologies for teaching about Christianity are a particularly delicate issue. The Chichester project focuses on diversity and dynamics within Christianity, aspects that have regularly been neglected in rather monoreligious RE contexts. Dealing with political, implicit and civil dimensions of Christianity and its role in world affairs (Erricker 1995), the Chichester approach successfully grounds teaching about Christianity in an integrative framework, based on a concept of religion that is not confined to Christianity but is applicable to a variety of religions. The Stapleford approach (e.g. Cooling 1994, 2000) with its ‘concept cracking’ method, however, rests on a concept of religion that focuses on Christianity only and cannot easily be transferred to other religions. Therefore, it is of limited value for integrative RE, failing to place teaching Christianity in an integrative subject with a non‐theological profile. If the ‘concept cracking’ method were to be used in an integrative RE environment, some aspects of it, as is presented in the publications of the Stapleford project, would have to be modified in order to avoid an implicitly confessional perspective (cf. Alberts 2007, 207–10).

The unreflective use of terms and concepts from one religious tradition for the study of other traditions is a recurrent problem in integrative RE, putting the impartial treatment of different religious and secular traditions at risk. Given that familiar concepts frequently form the natural starting points for comparisons, this may hardly be avoided completely. However, reflection about this problem needs to be included at the classroom level so that pupils are given opportunities to develop an awareness of the subtle challenges of representing religions and worldviews, including the discussion of alternative ways of representation.

Teaching methods and the notion of education

The general challenge for integrative RE is to find a non‐religious educational approach to a subject matter that has usually been approached from a religious point of view. A number of interesting methods for the study of religions in school have been suggested in England and Sweden, including visits, participant observation, interviews, dialogue, text study, interpretive methods and so on, referring to general educational theory. In the textbooks based on the interpretive approach (e.g. Wayne et al. 1996), different activities are suggested in order to provide starting points for the pupils to interpret the material they are studying. The learning process that is to be facilitated with interpretive methods may, as Jackson puts it, result in ‘edification’, a more reflexive perspective on one’s own way of life in the light of the study of other worldviews (Jackson 1997, 111f). Michael Grimmitt’s constructivist approach (Grimmitt 2000a) builds on constructivist theories of learning, starting with an encouragement of the pupils’ own interpretations and experiences of an object (he uses a statue of Shiva as an example). These are then related to alternative contextualised interpretations, accompanied by more general reflection about different interests in processes of interpretation. The narrative approach rejects the notion of ‘subject matter’ and favours the transformation of RE into something broader, a subject which introduces to the complex processes in which meaning, values and community are constructed rather than starting from a fixed given content – the religious traditions – for RE (Erricker and Erricker 2000, 203f).

In the design of teaching methods, the individual academic approaches to integrative RE consider child development in different ways. This reflection may relate to aims that are particularly relevant for children of a certain age (Westhill project, cf. Rudge 2000, 100), or to the development of teaching methods for younger children, for example, with respect to teaching about selected religious items or complex concepts (the A Gift to the Child andStapleford approaches). Child development is also considered when the ‘horizon of the pupils’ (critical approach) is given attention, information about children of the same age is made the starting point of textbooks (interpretive approach), or the children’s own stories (narrative approach) or own constructions of meaning (constructivist approach) form the starting point for reflection.

Education is unavoidably normative; it always has an ideological and political dimension. Even if integrative RE attempts to take an impartial perspective on different religions and views of life, it is based on ideological positions about, for example, education, democracy and human rights. Therefore, it is necessary that the ideological framework for the subject is made explicit, just as the presuppositions of any approach to RE. An example for this in the Swedish context is the attempt to formulate fundamental values (värdegrund, see Zackari and Modigh 2003) for all school activity.

Proposal for a European framework for integrative RE

My analysis of models of education about religions in Europe includes further examples (Alberts 2007, 312–52): Norway as another country with an integrative model, which was introduced in 1997; the Netherlands as an example for the ‘learning dimension’ model, integrating learning about religions in different school subjects; and Germany as an example for the separative model, though with exceptions in individual federal states. On the basis of the comparative analysis of these different models and against the background of recent theory and methodology in the study of religions (Alberts 2007, 8–54) and education (55–85), I have suggested a framework for integrative RE in Europe (353–87). This framework for integrative RE builds on common challenges in European countries, despite different education systems and ways of dealing with religion in school. It does not suggest a uniform model for all European countries, but outlines some important issues that – as the comparison of RE in England, Sweden, Norway, Germany and the Netherlands has shown – any integrative model raises.

My starting point is that once the decision has been made that RE is to be integrative, that is, designed as an obligatory subject which is attended by all children of a class together, there need to be certain standards to ensure its impartiality so that it really serves the general educational task of the school and is not instrumentalised by any religious or anti‐religious group. The case of the Norwegian KRL (kristendomskunnskap med religions‐ og livssynsorientering) subject and the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights against it (ECHR 2007) is a good example for the problems that are likely to arise if integrative RE is compulsory but not impartial, privileging individual religious traditions. My suggestion for a framework for integrative RE in Europe outlines the general cornerstones of an impartial approach to RE, specifying some key issues, such as the concept of religion, the representation of religions and the concept of education, in more detail. However, I hope that my proposal will not be misunderstood as contributing to the recent rhetoric about standardisation and comparability in European education systems. Rather than prescribing certain topics and expected levels of attainment for children of different age groups, my intention is to outline some general features of a framework for integrative RE, leaving the responsibility for the selection of topics and individual approaches to educators in the different contexts. This approach to a framework presupposes that educators themselves have a sound professional background in the study of religions and education, enabling them to take the relevant decisions about the actual content and methods themselves.

There is no ‘middle way’ between a secular and a religious approach to RE. If RE is to be integrative and obligatory, the aim of the subject cannot be to provide children with faith or spirituality, as this would necessarily promote particular religious traditions, prioritising them over other religious or secular views. The framework for integrative RE needs to be secular, keeping in mind the difference between a secular (non‐religious) and a secularist (anti‐religious) approach. ⁸ The study of different approaches has shown that the descriptive dimension of the subject (communicating knowledge and understanding of religions) is more uncontroversial than what is often called the existential or fostering dimension, even though a closer look at how knowledge and understanding of religions is actually interpreted in the different approaches shows that this may represent agreement on a quite superficial level.

Individual religious (and non‐religious) positions form the subject matter but not the overall framework for the subject. This needs to be kept in mind when the question of co‐operation with ‘insiders’ is considered. The most obvious danger is that some ‘insiders’ dominate the discourse about the subject to such an extent that the whole subject is organised around their particular religious interpretation of religion and religious plurality. The attempt to grant equal rights to ‘representatives’ ⁹ of different religious communities is often foiled by the privileges that well‐established religious communities have had with respect to self‐representation in society and educational institutions. Examples of this are the right of the committee representing the Church of England to veto in English agreed syllabus conferences for RE and the dominance of particular theological milieu in the establishment of the obligatory integrative subject KRL in Norway (cf. Thomassen 2006; Andreassen 2009). It is crucial for the credibility of integrative RE (and a necessary condition for its obligatory status) that no individual religious group – be it in the shape of theologians or ‘RE specialists’ in a particular religious tradition – is responsible for the general framework of the subject. A clear distinction needs to be made between self‐representations of religions (as an important part of the subject matter of RE) and the secular educational framework of the subject, which is different from a religious interpretation of religious plurality. This also means that no universal theology can provide the framework for the subject, as this would necessarily imply a religious framework, violating the rights of the children to freedom of and from religion. The value basis for integrative RE needs to be just the same as for any other school subject. The impartial approach, particularly to the field of religions and worldviews, is, however, a challenge to established structures in schools and elsewhere in society, relating to the critical and emancipatory impetus of the subject itself.

The educational presuppositions for integrative RE make it necessary that it provides the pupils with broad and balanced information as well as with critical reflection about the approach that the school subject is built on, including the methodological inventory for the study of religions and worldviews. The preliminary decisions on which this particular approach to representing religions and other views of life is based need to be made explicit in order to enable the pupils to make up their own minds about these phenomena, rather than tacitly presenting them with one particular interpretation of diversity. This is a main feature of academic concepts of education aiming at enabling the development of critical consciousness (e.g. Klafki 2007) in contrast to concepts of education produced by certain lobbies that have their own agendas for what the young generation should be educated into. ¹⁰

The academic study of religions and integrative RE

The academic discipline of the study of religions (Religionswissenschaft), despite its importance for integrative RE, has only very recently taken up school‐related issues in research and teaching contexts. The field of RE, traditionally interpreted as instruction in a particular religious tradition, did not seem to be a concern of the secular discipline of the study of religions at all. However, recent changes in RE politics, above all, the establishment of more and more integrative models of RE, have shown more clearly that the knowledge and competences that this discipline produces are also needed in school contexts. The involvement of the study of religions in integrative approaches to RE varies in individual European countries. In Denmark, for example, the study of religions is the responsible academic discipline for the subject ‘religion’ in the upper secondary school (cf. Jensen 2007, 329). In other countries, for example, in Norway, the involvement of the academic study of religions in integrative RE is not as yet very institutionalised (cf. Andreassen 2009).

Apart from the involvement of individual scholars in school‐related issues, there have been some recent initiatives to establish co‐operation within the study of religions on educational issues at the European and international levels. In 2008, a Working Group on Religion in Public Education was established in the European Association for the Study of Religions (EASR) following an initiative at the EASR 2007 conference in Bremen, which had education as one of its main conference areas (conference theme: ‘Plurality and representation: Religion in education, culture and society’). This working group intends to encourage research cooperation in the field of RE from a study‐of‐religions perspective, while keeping a broader perspective on issues related to religion, education and society. It held its first workshop on the education of teachers in departments for the study of religions at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense in March 2009. Furthermore, the EASR Working Group on Religion in Public Education has regular panel sessions at the annual conferences of the EASR (cf. EASR 2008).

At the international level, two recent conferences with a focus on RE may be mentioned in this context. In 2004, the International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR) held a regional conference on ‘Religious harmony: Problems, practice and education’ in Indonesia, hosted by the State Institutes of Islamic Studies in Yogyakarta and Semarang, which brought together Indonesian and European scholars (see Pye et al. 2006). Furthermore, a special conference of the IAHR ‘Religion on the borders: New challenges in the academic study of religion’, hosted by the Swedish Association for Research in Comparative Religion (SSRF) in Stockholm in 2007, included many sessions on school‐related issues (see Roos and Berglund 2009). The relationship between ‘the history of religions’ and ‘religious education’ is also the theme of a special issue of NUMEN, International Review for the History of Religion (see Alberts 2008), the official journal of the IAHR. This special issue of NUMEN contains contributions from different geographical areas, relating to a variety of social and political contexts for education about religions, mapping some of the challenges for the development of didactics of the study of religions.

These developments in the study of religions give reason to hope that this academic discipline will apply the methodology that it has developed for the comparative study of religions and worldviews in secular educational environments to school contexts also and may thereby help to improve the quality of integrative RE.

Notes on contributor

Wanda Alberts is associate professor for the Study of Religions at the University of Bergen in Norway. She is responsible for the teacher training programme for the school subjects Religion, livssyn og etikk (lower secondary school) and Religion og etikk (upper secondary school) at the University of Bergen.

Notes

1. Exceptions being Brandenburg, Bremen and Hamburg, which have to some extent integrative models (see Alberts 2007, 332–43), and Berlin, where confessional RE is purely optional and can be offered by various religious communities. Berlin has, in addition, an obligatory subject ‘ethics’ in the 7th to the 10th class, which also includes some study of religions (see Berlin 2006).

2. In 1965, the name of the subject for the gymnasieskola (upper secondary school) was changed to religionskunskap; in 1969, the subject in the grundskola (primary and lower secondary school) received the same name (cf. Hartmann 2000, 220).

3. Cf. Alberts (2007), 219–25. For a comprehensive account of the history of Swedish RE (in Swedish), see Hartmann (2000).

4. For organisational issues in RE in England, see Jackson (2000). For the groups consulted in the processes when the syllabuses and guidelines for RE were written, see the respective documents (e.g. QCA 2004).

5. If education about religion is a compulsory subject in state schools, it needs to be in line with the general pedagogical principles of school education. In some countries, the value base for school education in general has been made explicit (see, e.g., Zackari and Modigh 2003 for the Swedish school system). The European Court of Human Rights has in its judgements also defined standards for compulsory education in different subjects relating to the European Convention of Human Rights. It finds, for example, that the subject matter should be presented in an ‘objective, critical and pluralistic’ manner (ECHR 1976, § 53). This is directly related to compulsory education about religions in two recent judgements against Norway and Turkey (ECHR 2007a, 2007b). In the recent case against Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights finds that ‘in a democratic society, only pluralism in education can enable pupils to develop a critical mind with regard to religious matters in the context of freedom of thought, conscience and religion’, and emphasises that ‘(…) it should be noted that, as the Court has held on numerous occasions, this freedom, in its religious dimension, is one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned (…)’ (ECHR 2007b, §69).

6. See, for example, my account of implications of the history of the academic study of religions (Alberts 2007, 14–20). With respect to the English RE context, see also Jackson’s account of the phenomenology of religion (Jackson 1997, 7–29).

7. For problems with the livsfråga approach, see Hartmann (2000, 222).

8. The secular approach is often related to the notion of ‘methodological agnosticism’ (see, e.g., Cush 1999, 384).

9. A concept, which is not unproblematic in itself, as it implies the reproduction of internal power structures of the groups represented as well as a focus on elite religion rather than actual empirical religion.

10. For a problematisation of these conflicting concepts of education with respect to integrative RE, see Alberts (2007, 360–6, 388–9).