ABSTRACT
At present, there are relatively few international studies that reflect research in religious didactics from a metatheoretical perspective. Against this background, the fundamental question of this contribution is whether there are research designs that are typical for research in religious didactics (1.). For this purpose, research was conducted for a later Delphi study; its development (2.), results (3.), and open questions (4.) are presented below. The study does not only produce certain findings and problem indications with regard to research designs of religious didactics, but perhaps even in a general model for religious-didactic research. We regard the current status of this project as an interim result, which shall be examined in a subsequent round, taking into account the international context (5).
1. Research in ‘religious didactics’ – preliminary considerations
To begin with, in the English Speaking context ‘religious didactics’ is a term in need of clarification. There are disadvantages to its use such as the fact that in English the term ‘religious education’ is common and that ‘didactics’ often has a methodically narrowed undertone. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in many parts of Europe (such as the German and French speaking contexts, the context of Slavic and to a large extent Scandinavian languages) the term ‘didactics’ expresses the scientific reflection of teaching and learning, the school context often being the main focus (Rothgangel and Vollmer Citation2020). Since our research project originated in a German-speaking context, and since it does not touch on all fields of ‘religious education’ but focuses on the school context, we will from now on use the term ‘religious didactics’.
In the past two decades, an increasing internationalisation of research in religious didactics could be witnessed, as a look at various publications shows (e.g. Ziebertz and Riegel Citation2009; Bakker et al. Citation2008; Avest, Bakker, and Van Der Want Citation2009; Berglund, Shanneik, and Bocking Citation2016; Kim, Osmer, and Schweitzer Citation2018). However, it is striking that there are relatively few projects that reflect research in religious didactics a meta-theoretical perspective, in which specific meta-theoretical aspects are taken into account (e.g. Bråten Citation2013; Käbisch Citation2019; Schweitzer and Schreiner Citation2019). In particular, there is hardly any discussion about typical research designs and, as a consequence, a desideratum to agree on typical research designs in religious didactics. In our opinion such a conceptual effort and the accompanying discourse bear great potential for a further improvement of the quality of research in religious didactics in the intermediate- and long-terms. In this respect, the following considerations can be considered a first step towards overcoming this weakness and stimulating international research on research designs in religious didactics.
The concept of research design itself has been intensively reflected in the methodological literature on scientific research (Creswell and Creswell Citation2018; Gorard Citation2013; Miller and Salkind Citation2002; Spector Citation1981; Vaus Citation2001), including religious studies (Roof Citation2011). Basically, a research design integrates the different components of a scientific study into a comprehensive and coherent way. It ensures the quality of a project, organises its entire programme and ensures the reliability of its conclusions. Therefore, a research design encompasses more than the methods of a project (Vaus Citation2001, 9–11). Three elements are characteristic for a research design, namely the research problem, the research question and the purpose of the research (DeForge Citation2010). Nevertheless, research designs in the educational sciences are usually associated primarily with methodological considerations (e.g. field study; case study; experimental study).
Against this background, the fundamental question of this contribution is whether there are research designs – comparable to the methodologically oriented research designs in the empirical educational sciences – that are typical for research in religious didactics. For this purpose, a study was conducted, the development and results of which are presented below. The aim of this paper is to present a preliminary concept for a broader understanding of ‘research designs’ in RE. This was developed in the context of German-speaking religious- didactic studies and is suggested as a model for discussion in an international context (see below). In this way, the resilience of this model of religious-didactic research, including its research designs, will be tested and, if necessary, further developed through necessary corrections or additions.
2. Starting points and development of the study
The question of research designs or types of research in all subject-didactic disciplines was initiated by the Association for Fachdidaktik (Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik, www.fachdidaktik.org; in the following: GFD), the umbrella organisation of all subject-matter didactics in Germany. After a joint conference entitled ‘Formats of Research in Subject-specific Didactics’ in 2011 (Bayrhuber et al. Citation2012), a GFD working group elaborated on this notion and finally presented a position paper in which didactic research designs (Forschungsformat) are defined as follows: ‘A “format of subject didactic research” (Forschungsformat) is defined as the totality of all content-related, methodological and organisational aspects of research which can be described in the planning, implementation, evaluation and processing of results of a didactical research project […]. This includes, among other things, theoretical relevance, interest in knowledge, methods of investigation and evaluation, and procedures for using the knowledge gained.’ (GFD Citation2015, 2) A research design is thus more than just the application of a method, but encompasses the entire research process, within which the method represents one formatting element among others. In trying to render this concept in English without losing its substance and complexity as well as for reasons of convenience we suggest to use the established term ‘research design’ (instead of ‘research format’), knowing that the term could also be understood in more narrow terms as some sort of empirical approach only. This assumption, however, can be overcome and a wider interpretation of the notion agreed upon among all the different subject didactics in Germany. For these reasons and for lack of a more appropriate term we adopted ‘research design’.
As a consequence of all the GFD activities, the idea of research designs has been taken up by various subject-matter didactics, such as music didactics (Rolle Citation2012), science didactics (Schecker, Parchmann, and Krüger Citation2014), mathematics didactics (Leuders Citation2015), political didactics (Petrik Citation2016) and religious didactics (Schambeck and Riegel Citation2018). A comparison of 17 subject-matter didactics confirms that research designs are interpreted differently across the subject-matter didactics (Rothgangel Citation2020, 533–546). Nevertheless, two fundamental aspects for the understanding of research designs can be identified:
First, many subject didactics conceive of research designs primarily as methodological approaches. Similar to religious didactics, the following five methodological approaches can be deduced from the descriptions in 17 subject-matter didactics: historical, empirical, comparative, theoretical, and practice-related (Rothgangel Citation2020, 533–537; see also Schröder Citation2012, 272–273). These methodological approaches can be seen as a first formatting dimension of research designs.
Secondly, the comparison makes it clear that, in addition to the methodological approaches, certain research areas of subject didactic research (e.g. teacher and student research) also have a formatting effect and can be understood as a second formatting dimension of subject didactic research (Rothgangel Citation2020, 537–543). At this point, however, it should be noted self-critically that at this time the distinction between research area and research design was still insufficient, so that certain research designs were also identified as particular research areas (548).
In order to further clarify the nature of research designs from a religious-didactic point of view, we decided to conduct a study, similar to the Delphi method (Niederberger and Renn Citation2019). To prepare this study we conducted a document analysis (Bowen Citation2009) on the handbooks on religious didactics published in Germany since 2000 (Riegel and Rothgangel Citation2020a). Comparing these principles, both characteristic research questions and typical research areas of research in religious didactics have been identified. In this context we also became aware that in addition to the methodological approaches and the research areas of religious didactics, the reference theories of religious-didactic research likewise have a formatting effect and come into consideration as a third formatting dimension. Differences can arise, for example, when either theology or religious studies is used as the reference theory for research in religious education (e.g. Cush Citation2009). However, other theories of reference also have a formatting effect on research in religious education. For example, research in religious education can lead to different results if it is conducted through the lens of Adorno’s critical theory or Luhmann’s systems theory.
Against this background we concluded with a list of nine tasks typical of the scientific discourse of religious didactics, namely
historical research,
reflecting the scientific nature of the discipline,
elaborating theoretical concepts,
(re-)constructing the objects of religious learning,
comparative research,
research on the profession of teaching religion,
analysing the attitudes and pre-concepts of the students,
evaluating the effects of religious teaching and learning, and
design based research (Riegel and Rothgangel Citation2020b).
We claimed that these characteristic tasks form potential designs of research in religious didactics. For the study we asked nine colleagues from the field of religious didactics with particular expertise in the relevant task to discuss whether and how this task may form a research design of this discipline. The colleagues were invited to consider the following four questions:
Which are the theories of religious didactics essential to accomplish the relevant task?
What are characteristic research areas to be analysed by accomplishing the relevant task?
Which methodologies are applied to accomplish the relevant task?
Do theories, research areas and methodologies form a particular research design?
The colleagues’ answers to these questions were published in a special issue of Theo-Web, an academic Journal of Religious Education (2020/1), publishing in German (www.theo-web.de).
3. Results of the study
In the following section, the results of this study are presented in line with the key questions mentioned above.
3.1 Reference theories as a formatting dimension
The nine expert reports mention the following relevant reference theories: Theology, educational science, psychology, sociology, philosophy, cultural studies, and religious studies. Within this spectrum, the educational sciences are the most relevant, since every draft discussed refers to them. Theology is also of great relevance in six drafts and of little relevance in another draft. Psychology and sociology have a large impact in four drafts and a small impact in a fifth. Finally, cultural studies and religious studies were addressed in two contributions each.
On the one hand this result points to the broad spectrum of theoretical references within religious didactics (Ziebertz and Simon Citation1995, 10–174). On the other hand, it corresponds to the idea present in many handbooks of the German-language discourse of religious-didactic studies that research in this discipline takes place predominantly at the interface of theology and educational science (Riegel Citation2019, 253–259; Schröder Citation2012, 164–179).
3.2 Research areas as a formatting dimension
The comparative analysis of the nine sets of expertise leads to the identification of six research areas of research in religious education: religion class, pupils, teachers, learning processes, learning objects and theory. The category of religion class includes the structure and nature of this school subject and the conditions under which it is taught. Interestingly, there is no research area that is covered in all nine proposed research designs. The category of pupils is the most frequently mentioned, in six designs as the main aspect of research and in two others as a secondary aspect. Teachers are of similar relevance, so are learning processes and religious education as such, which are addressed in six to seven drafts. There are also two drafts dealing with each of the proposed objects, namely historical and comparative research. This low sensitivity towards the research areas of religious didactics could be caused by the pronounced methodological character of both drafts, because the predominant concentration on methods broadens the spectrum of the subjects to be analysed. The counter-draft to this constellation is the philosophy of science of religious didactics. By including a meta-perspective on the discipline, this particular draft focuses exclusively on theory. A similar specialisation can be seen in the drafts on occupational and attitudinal research, which concentrate predominantly on teachers or teachers and students. Here, it is the distinct content-related character of both designs which gives rise to this rather limited range of subjects under investigation.
3.3 Research methodologies as a formatting dimension
The methodologies to which the contributions of the special issue refer have been categorised according to a scheme proposed by Schröder, which distinguishes between historical, comparative, systematic, empirical and practice-oriented approaches in religious education (Schröder Citation2012, 272–273). There are only two contributions, profession research and the (re-) construction of learning objects, which cover the entire spectrum of possible methodologies. All other drafts are characterised by a special methodological approach that does not exclude a low relevance of additional methodologies. For example, the systematic approach is fundamental for reflecting the scientific nature of religious didactics and for elaborating theoretical concepts. Empirical methodologies are central to the designs of attitude and concept research, research on the effects of religious teaching and learning, and design-oriented research. As it is to be expected, historical research mainly refers to historical methodologies and comparative research to comparative methodologies. Of the methodological approaches, the empirical approach is the most relevant, and it is the one that most heavily shapes the research of five potential designs. The systematic approach, which determines four designs and shapes five others, is of similar relevance. From the perspective of hypothetical research designs, the practice-oriented approach seems to be the least relevant, although the reasons for this would still have to be specifically investigated.
3.4 Assessment of religious-didactic research designs
The final question in this study was whether colleagues would identify the area they were working on as a research design. Two colleagues denied this more or less. Interestingly, these are the two tasks that are particularly determined by a characteristic methodology, namely historical research and comparative research. The reason for this could be seen in the fact that no clear contours of a research design can be discerned in either area, possibly due to the openness of comparative procedures or the insufficient number of historical projects in religious didactics. However, further research is needed in this respect. In contrast, the following seven fields of research were largely or clearly assessed as research designs of religious education research: reflecting the scientific nature of the discipline, elaborating theoretical concepts, (re-)constructing the objects of religious learning, research on the profession of teaching religion, analysing the attitudes and pre-concepts of the students, evaluating the effects of religious teaching and learning, and design based research.
4. Open questions of the study
All in all, the study has shown that the concept of research design within religious didactics is suitable for stimulating a fruitful debate on the basic structures of research work in this discipline. Although this study did not lead to a clear consensus on such designs – let alone a comprehensive list of such designs – it did provide important clarifications of the concept itself and initial sketches of various designs. For example, research designs in religious didactics are not limited to empirical approaches, as might be suggested by the term ‘research design’ as used in the empirical social and educational sciences (see below 4.5). Furthermore, certain questions were raised that have the potential to advance the discourse on research designs so far.
In addition to the presentation of the specific research design as assigned to the individual experts, they repeatedly raised questions concerning the understanding of the research designs or its function in religious didactics. The following section outlines five questions that are particularly relevant to the international context. Specifically, these are functions of context factors (4.1) and epistemological questions (4.2), the discriminatory power of research designs in religious didactics (4.3), domain-specific aspects of research designs in religious didactics (4.4), and the use of the term ‘research design’ in general (4.5).
4.1 The function of context factors for research designs in religious Didactics
In the expert reports, reference is repeatedly made to organisational aspects of research mentioned in the GFD paper. For example, special mention is made of externally funded research (Gärtner Citation2020, 26) or the cooperation with educational psychology, which is virtually necessary for certain empirical studies (Schweitzer Citation2020, 93). In fact, a look at other subject didactics confirms that organisational aspects are an important condition for subject didactic research, both for their history and for their current nature (Rothgangel Citation2020, 492–493, 518–519). The establishment and expansion of subject didactics can, for example, depend on whether and to what extent the respective subject exists in schools or whether societies of the respective subject-matter didactic exist.
Generally, the question arises, whether context aspects have a formatting effect on research designs. For it could be that context aspects merely represent contingency factors for the research designs. If, for example, education policy decides to promote predominantly competence-oriented projects in subject didactics, this may limit the scope for projects in development research, impact research or concept formation, but it does not necessarily affect the character of these research designs.
Therefore, we currently prefer the open term ‘contextual condition factors’ in order to express the as yet unexplained role between ‘formatting factor’ and ‘contingency factor’. In our opinion, this is a point that can be further clarified by comparative international research in religious didactics. One possible starting point could be further reflections, whether location, space, and place (Rothgangel et al. Citation2017) have a formatting or a contingency effect on research designs in religious didactics.
On an international level such context factors are even more important. With regard to the (non-)denominational character of religious education, for example, the national context causes differences in the theories referred to, such as theology or religious studies (e.g. Cush Citation2009). In this case the context would even have an effect on the operationalisation of the formatting dimensions of the research designs. If so, important further questions would be the consequence, such as: First, what significance do theology or religious studies have for research in religious didactics; second, what concrete effect does the different status of the two theories of reference have on research in religious didactics; and third, how does the reference to theology and religious studies take place in detail, i.e. which sub-disciplines are used in which way (such as normative or descriptive?). In the light of this example it is very likely that contextual factors are an important category in the international discourse on research designs in religious didactics.
4.2 On the function of ‘purpose of inquiry’ for religious-didactic Research Designs
The expert reports repeatedly point out that, in addition to the given formatting dimensions of reference theories, research areas and methodologies, a research design is also determined by the epistemological interest as such. For example, Riegel (Citation2020) distinguishes between pure basic research, benefit-inspired basic research and application-oriented research and development. The function of epistemological interest in the context of research in religious didactics can be seen in the fact that they provide a rough orientation for an individual research project or for a specific research design. Ultimately, it is the research question which provides an even more concrete ‘bundling’ or bundling effect – namely, the cohesion within a particular research project in view of the correlation of the three formatting dimensions of reference sciences, research areas and methodologies. Just as the research question of a single research project provides an even more concrete bundling, so we want to express this bundling in terms of research designs with the term ‘purpose of inquiry’, whereby not only the corresponding research questions are included in a generalised form, but also the epistemological interests.
With this insight, the relationship of the ‘purpose of inquiry’ to the three formatting dimensions of reference theories, research areas, and methodologies can also be defined more precisely.
(see )
Figure 1. Research design and formatting dimensions
If one thinks of the three dimensions as independent of each other, so that in principle every aspect on one of these dimensions can be taken independently of the aspects of the other dimensions, they span a three-dimensional space. The function of the ‘purpose of inquiry’ is, that it determines both which of the various aspects covered by these dimensions will be addressed by a particular research design and how the specific access of a research design to these aspects will be performed. Thus, the characteristic purpose of inquiry of each research design locates it in the space that is spanned by reference theory, research area and methodology.
A fundamental question of the present contribution is whether this model consisting of the contextual condition factors, the three formatting dimensions and the bundling ‘purpose of inquiry’ also has a heuristic function for religious-didactic research in an international context.
4.3 On the distinctiveness of religious-didactic research designs
The expert reports repeatedly mention that there are overlaps between their own research design and other research designs. For example, Friedrich Schweitzer points out the proximity between research that focuses on effects and design-based research (Schweitzer Citation2020, 95). Indeed, common intersections are not surprising in the case of research designs inasmuch as overlaps in the respective formatting dimensions of reference theories, research areas and methodologies can also be observed in the presentation of the individual research designs. For example, educational science plays an important role as a theory of reference for both design-based research and impact research; in addition, both research designs focus on the learner and empirical methods dominate in both.
Nevertheless, a comparison of these two research designs also reveals considerable differences, so that – regardless of their overlap – they differ recognisably in their entirety: Design-based research, for example, is characterised by its iterative and cyclical research process, which to a certain extent represents a methodological unique selling point compared to all other research designs. Differences also emerge with regard to reference theories: For instance, theology seems to play a greater and psychology a lesser role in the design-based research than in impact research.
In principle, the present subject didactic research designs are ideal types in the sense of Max Weber, ‘i.e. in full conceptual purity they are not or only occasionally represented.’ (Weber Citation1985, 194–195) In the end, they serve heuristics, in this case the order of research in religious didactics. At the same time, the identified overlaps between the individual research designs again emphasise the importance of the ‘purpose of inquiry’: insofar as it defines the characteristic perspective of a research design, it contributes to the entry of a difference into these overlaps.
4.4 Domain-specific aspects of religious-didactic research designs
The expert reports on the individual research designs repeatedly mention domain-specific considerations. An example of this is the professional competence of teachers of religion, where the structure of the educational science professional discourse changes when applied to the religious domain. Thus, it belongs to the specific competencies of religion teachers to know the inherent logic of religion and to act on this basis in teaching. This logic is not based on proofs in the scientific sense, but ‘on premises that are based on concrete experiences of past and present generations and whose credibility must be proven in the communication of religious facts’ (Riegel Citation2020, 115). Just because this logic is inquired about as unreasonable in a secular society, it is subject to a ‘special duty to give reasons’ (115) in religious education. As a consequence, e.g. the knowledge of epistemic premises of the religious field represents an essential aspect of the expertise of religion teachers, whereas these do not play any role, e.g. in the discourse of scientific competence, with the exception of biology didactics (109, 115). This example shows how both the inner structure and the scope of research designs change through their relation to religious teaching and learning. In this sense, the expert reports point out that subject didactic research designs seem to be to a certain extent domain-specific in their contours.
At this point, it becomes clear that although it should be possible to form comprehensive research designs for all subject didactics and that studies within a research design have the potential to stimulate and enrich each other. However, possible domain-specific differences must always be taken into account. At this point, it should be noted that the present considerations were developed primarily on the basis of religious-didactic research in the school context, and that further consideration should be given to which adaptations might be necessary by adding further research fields of the academic discipline religious education (Rothgangel and Riegel Citation2020b, 202–204), such as confirmation work (e.g. Schweitzer et al. Citation2017) or ordinary theology (Astley and Francis Citation2013). Such fields could have an effect on previous considerations to the extent to which informal learning processes (as part of ordinary theology) can be in tension with professional research for example. For this reason, further research is needed to clarify to what extent the addition of further research fields of the academic discipline religious education could have an effect on the present reflections, which are based on religious learning processes in the school context.
Finally, the even more complex question arises whether domain-specific differences between religious education, moral education, worldview education, human rights education or intercultural education (e.g. Jackson Citation2014, Citation2016) have an impact on research designs.
4.5 The language use of research design and forschungsformat
With good reason a clarification of the term Forschungsformat (literally: ‘format of research’) used in German for research designs has often been called for. In fact, it is a new conceptual construct that was developed in the context of the GFD and on which hardly any consensus has yet been found (Schweitzer Citation2020, 93–94). A decisive motive for the introduction of this term was the desire to be able to work out the peculiarities of subject didactic research, in contrast to the teaching-learning research as practiced by fields such as educational psychology.
While in German both authors prefer the term Forschungsformat, which was established by the GFD in subject didactics, it seems to be more appropriate for the transfer of these considerations to the English-speaking world not to introduce the new term ‘formats of research’, but to tie in with the term ‘research design’,Footnote1 which is mainly established in the empirical social sciences and educational sciences (see above 1.).
Because of their methodological focus in educational sciences, it is important that research designs in RE are not understood in a methodologically narrow sense, but that specific research designs are developed in line with the research area of studies in religious didactics. Our basic intention is therefore to take up the already established English term ‘research design’ and to adapt it to the concrete research area of religious-didactic studies. Ultimately, these considerations on language use clearly reveal a challenge of international knowledge transfer (Schweitzer and Schreiner Citation2019): While in German the reasons for not using the term ‘research design’ but rather Forschungsformat for the present project predominate, in English it seems more appropriate to use the already established term ‘research design’ instead of the newly introduced term ‘format of research’ and to adapt it according to religious-didactic concerns.
5. Interim summary and perspective
The study does not only result in certain findings and problem indications with regard to research designs of religious didactics, but perhaps even in a general model for religious-didactic research.
We regard the current status of this project as an interim result, because, among other things, of its preliminary character through the German-language discourse of subject didactics as well as religious didactics. Accordingly, the following essentials of this study have to be seen as provisional conclusions with a hypothetical character, which shall be examined in a next round, taking into account the international context:
Research in religious didactics takes place in a three-dimensional space that is spanned by the formatting dimensions of reference theories, research areas and methodologies. The individual research designs in turn define a certain scope for concrete research projects of the respective format. Accordingly, a research design describes the structural conditions under which a research project can be realised. The realisation itself, however, only happens in the concrete research projects themselves. This relationship is to be thought of in terms of dialogue, because just as a research design orients a research project, the concrete implementation of a research project affects the contours of a research design – at least indirectly and probably above all in the context of similar projects.
Against this background, it should be clear that research designs only emerge over time (e.g. development research as a recent example) – and conversely, it is to be expected that certain research design will also fade away again or be integrated into a new research design or disappear completely. Research designs in religious didactics are thus temporally contingent constructs.
The three formatting dimensions mentioned above, including the bundling and contextual formatting or conditioning factors, have a heuristic function for religious-didactic research projects: These can be drawn into the three-dimensional space of religious-didactic research. In this way, this model could contribute to questioning existing research on the didactics of religion and arranging it according to its characteristic contours. Its function is thus on the one hand strongly science-theoretical. On the other hand, it can also motivate concrete research projects or offer a critical-constructive orientation framework for planned research projects. In this sense, the concept of the religious-didactic research design in its heuristic function is decidedly practical.
All in all, the three formatting dimensions (methodology, research area, reference theory) as well as the contextual factors might not only be relevant for research designs in religious didactics. In fact, they could also be relevant for any research project in religious didactics, where the specific research question always defines the localisation of the research project within this 3-dimensional space. This assumption is stated with hesitation and care. The next round of the planned Delphi study in the international context of religious didactics shall give more insight and information and will prove, modify or refute these hypotheses.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Martin Rothgangel
Martin Rothgangel is full professor and head of the Institute for Religious Education at the Faculty of Protestant Theology of the University of Vienna. He is also affiliated professor at the University of Haifa. From 2012-2016 he was chairman of the Society of Subject Didactics (Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik, GfD e.V.), and from 2014-2018 dean of the Faculty of Protestant Theology in Vienna.
Ulrich Riegel
Ulrich Riegel is full professor of religious education at Siegen University. In between 2013 and 2017 he was co-coordinator of the EARLI-SIG 19 “Religious and Spiritual Education”. His main research interests are on the empirical analysis of teaching and learning in/from/about religion in scholastic context, as well as on the spirituality of young people.
Notes
1. We would like to thank our colleague Friedrich Schweitzer for his respective advice.
References
- Astley, J., and L. J. Francis, edited by. 2013. Exploring Ordinary Theology: Everyday Christian Believing and the Church. Farnham: Ashgate.
- Avest, I. T., C. Bakker, and A. Van Der Want. 2009. “International Comparison – Commonalities and Differences of 36 Teachers Teaching Religion(s) in Europe.” In Teachers Responding to Religious Diversity in Europe. Researching Biography and Pedagogy, edited by A. Van Der Want, et al., 111–126. Münster: Waxmann.
- Bakker, C., H.-G. Heimbrock, R. Jackson, G. Skeie, and W. Weisse, edited by. 2008. Religious Diversity and Education in Europe. Münster: Waxmann.
- Bayrhuber, H., U. Harms, B. Muszynski, B. Ralle, M. Rothgangel, L.-H. Schön, H. Vollmer, and H.-G. Weigand, edited by. 2012. In Formate fachdidaktischer Forschung: Empirische Projekte - historische Analysen - theoretische Grundlegungen. Münster: Waxmann.
- Berglund, J., Y. Shanneik, and B. Bocking, edited by. 2016. Religious Education in a Global-Local World. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32289-6. Switzerland: Springer.
- Bowen, G. A. 2009. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9 (2): 27–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
- Bråten, O. M. H. 2013. Towards A Methodology for Comparative Studies in Religious Education: A Study of England and Norway. Münster: Waxmann.
- Creswell, J. W., and J. D. Creswell. 2018. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th ed ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
- Cush, D. 2009. “Religious Studies versus Theology: Why I’m Still Glad that I ‘Converted’ from Theology to Religious Studies.” In Theology and Religious Studies in Higher Education: Global Perspectives, edited by D. Bird and S. Smith, 15–30. ISBN 9781847063113. London: Continuum.
- DeForge, B. R. 2010. “Research Design Principles.” In Encyclopedia of Research Design, edited by N. J. Salkind, 1252–1258. Los Angeles: Sage.
- Gärtner, C. 2020. “Mehr als ein ‘umbrella term’? Das Forschungsformat der Fachdidaktischen Entwicklungsforschung in der Religionsdidaktik.” Theo-Web. Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik 19 (1): 17–30.
- GFD 2015. “Formate Fachdidaktischer Forschung: Definition und Reflexion des Begriffs.” http://www.fachdidaktik.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/GFD-Positionspapier-18-Formate-Fachdidaktischer-Forschung.pdf
- Gorard, S. 2013. Research Design: Creating Robust Approaches for the Social Sciences. London: Sage. doi:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526431486.
- Jackson, R. 2014. Signposts: Policy and Practice for Teaching about Religions and Non-Religious Worldviews in Intercultural Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
- Jackson, R. 2016. “Implications of the Brexit Campaign in the UK for Religious, Citizenship, Moral, Intercultural, Political and Human Rights Education.” .European Forum for Teachers of Religious Education. http://eftre.weebly.com/re-and-brexit.html
- Käbisch, D., edited by. 2019. Religion and Educational Research. National Traditions and Transnational Perspectives. Münster: Waxmann.
- Kim, H.-S., R. R. Osmer, and F. Schweitzer. 2018. The Future of Protestant Religious Education in an Age of Globalization. Münster: Waxmann.
- Leuders, T. 2015. “Empirische Forschung in der Fachdidaktik: Eine Herausforderung für die Professionalisierung und die Nachwuchsqualifizierung.” Beiträge Zur Lehrerbildung 33 (2): 215–234.
- Miller, D. C., and N. J. Salkind. 2002. Handbook of Research Design & Social Measurement. 6th ed ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
- Niederberger, M., and O. Renn. 2019. Delphi-Verfahren in den Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften: Konzept, Varianten und Anwendungsbeispiele. Wiesbaden: Springer.
- Petrik, A., edited by. 2016. Formate fachdidaktischer Forschung in der politischen Bildung. Frankfurt am Main: Wochenschau Verlag.
- Riegel, U. 2019. “Religionspädagogik als wissenschaftliche Disziplin.” In Katholische Disziplinen und ihre Wissenschaftstheorien, edited by B. P. Göcke and L. V. Ohler, 245–278. Münster: Aschendorff.
- Riegel, U. 2020. “Profession und Professionalisierung als mögliches Format religionsdidaktischer Forschung.” Theo-Web. Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik 19 (1): 99–125.
- Riegel, U., and M. Rothgangel. 2020a. “Formate religionsdidaktischer Forschung.” In Handbuch Religionsdidaktik, edited by U. Kropac and U. Riegel, 483–492. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
- Riegel, U., and M. Rothgangel. 2020b. “Das ‘Format fachdidaktischer Forschung’ als heuristischer Begriff und seine religionsdidaktische Bedeutung.” Theo-Web. Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik 19 (1): 2–16.
- Rolle, C. 2012. “Vom Umgang mit Theorie in der fachdidaktischen Forschung.” In Musikpädagogisches Handeln: Begriffe, Erscheinungsformen, politische Dimensionen, edited by J. Knigge and A. Niessen, 337–343. Vol. Musikpädagogische Forschung 33. Essen: Die Blaue Eule.
- Roof, W. C. 2011. “Research Design.” In The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion, edited by M. Stausberg and S. Engler, 68–80. London: Routledge.
- Rothgangel, M. 2020. “17 Fachdidaktiken im Vergleich: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven.” In Lernen im Fach und über das Fach hinaus: Bestandsaufnahmen und Forschungsperspektiven aus 17 Fachdidaktiken im Vergleich, Allgemeine Fachdidaktik, Band 2, edited by M. Rothgangel, U. Abraham, H. Bayrhuber, V. Frederking, W. Jank, and H. J. Vollmer, 469–577. 1st ed ed. Münster: Waxmann.
- Rothgangel, M., and J. Vollmer. 2020. “Towards a Theory of Subject-Matter Didactics.” Research in Subject-Matter Teaching and Learning (RISTAL) 3: 126–151.
- Rothgangel, M., K. Von Brömssen, H.-G. Heimbrock, and G. Skeie, edited by. 2017. Location, Space and Place in Religious Education, Religious Diversity and Education in Europe Vol 34. Münster: Waxmann.
- Rothgangel, M., and U. Riegel. 2020. “Auf dem Weg zu Formaten religionsdidaktischer Forschung.” Theo-Web. Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik 19 (1): 192–212.
- Schambeck, M., and U. Riegel, edited by. 2018. Was im Religionsunterricht so läuft: Wege und Ergebnisse religionspädagogischer Unterrichtsforschung. 1st. ed ed. Freiburg: Herder.
- Schecker, H., I. Parchmann, and D. Krüger. 2014. “Formate und Methoden naturwissenschaftsdidaktischer Forschung.” In Lehrbuch. Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung, edited by D. Krüger, I. Parchmann, and H. Schecker, 1–15. Berlin: Springer.
- Schröder, B. 2012. Religionspädagogik. Neue theologische Grundrisse. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
- Schweitzer, F. 2020. “Wirksamkeitsforschung in der Religionsdidaktik. Ziele, Forschungsfelder und die Frage nach religionsdidaktischen Forschungsformaten.” Theo-Web. Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik 19 (1): 85–98.
- Schweitzer, F., and P. Schreiner. 2019. “International Knowledge Transfer in Religious Education: Universal Validity or Regional Practices? Backgrounds, Considerations and Open Questions Concerning a New Debate.” British Journal of Religious Education. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2019.1701987.
- Schweitzer, F., T. Schlag, H. Simojoki, K. Tervo-Niemelä, and W. Ilg, edited by. 2017. Confirmation, Faith, and Volunteerism. A Longitudinal Study on Protestant Adolescents in the Transition Towards Adulthood. European Perspectives. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
- Spector, P. E. 1st. ed. 1981. Research Designs. Newbury Park: Sage.
- Vaus, D. A. D. 2001. Research Design in Social Research. Reprint, London: Sage
- Weber, M. 1985. “Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre.” edited by, J. Winckelmann. 6th ed. Tübingen: Mohr.
- Ziebertz, H. ‑. G., and W. Simon, edited by. 1995. Bilanz der Religionspädagogik. 1st ed. Düsseldorf: Patmos
- Ziebertz, H.-G., and U. Riegel, edited by. 2009. How Teachers in Europe Teach Religion. An International Empirical Study in 16 Countries, International Practical Theology 12. Berlin: LIT.