Categorising interfaith learning objectives: a scoping review

ABSTRACT

Numerous scholars have emphasised that interfaith initiatives can contribute to personal transformation and enhance social cohesion, but it is often unclear if and how these initiatives effectively bring about the intended changes. This article argues that setting up a shared framework of interfaith learning objectives is a necessary first step towards organising and evaluating interfaith initiatives. After conducting a systematic scoping review, we categorised and summarised the learning objectives of 93 interfaith initiatives. These learning objectives are presented in a matrix of twelve categories, reflecting the learning objectives set by the organisers of the 93 initiatives. This article is intended as a first step towards building a shared scholarly framework that can then be used to guide the organisation and evaluation of interfaith initiatives. The matrix can encourage organisers of interfaith initiatives to clarify their learning objectives and, consequently, develop more coherent and evaluable initiatives.

KEYWORDS:

• Learning objectives
• interfaith learning
• interfaith pedagogy
• religious diversity

Introduction

Since 9/11, the number of interfaith initiatives has proliferated rapidly at local, national, and international levels. These initiatives have also received increasing scholarly attention worldwide (Griera and Nagel 2018; Cheetham, Pratt, and Thomas 2013). Interfaith initiatives can be defined in their broadest sense as organised activities that intentionally involve people who orient around religion differently (Pedersen 2004, 79). These activities are organised by various stakeholders: from religious institutions to academic organisations (McCarthy 2007a, 18,9). A plethora of academic research has emphasised that interfaith initiatives can contribute to personal transformation and enhance social cohesion (Halafoff 2013). Scholars increasingly recognise ‘the opportunity and responsibility of the educative process to create a bridge to understanding difference’ (Byrne 2011). While the interfaith movement is proliferating, the current approach towards organising interfaith initiatives can best be described as a process of ‘moving experimentally into an unknown future’ (Berling 2020, 9), since the organisers are as yet unable to provide a clear answer as to whether and how their pedagogy and didactics are effective in bringing about the intended transformations (Garfinkel 2004). Several scholars have ascertained that few interfaith initiatives provide ‘well-defined evaluation criteria’ for reflecting on their impact (Vader 2015, 38; cf. McCallum 2018; Seyle et al. 2021). However, the challenge we observe is even more profound: there is no shared framework to analyse and formulate the learning objectives of interfaith initiatives. We perceive both theoretical and empirical lacunae regarding this challenge (cf. Abu-Nimer 2021). First, scholars use disparate concepts and terms to describe the objectives of interfaith learning, and this conceptual vagueness prevents the establishment of clear and practical evaluations. The conceptual ambiguity also hinders the advancement of the scholarly field of interfaith learning: when scholars use various terms and concepts, they run the risk of being at cross purposes with each other or misunderstanding and misinterpreting the work of other scholars. Second, the missing consensus precludes organisers of interfaith initiatives from formulating well-defined and explicit learning objectives and, consequently, determining which activities and evaluations best suit their purposes (cf. Biggs 1996, 2003). By conducting the first systematic scoping review in the field of interfaith learning, the current article aims to achieve more clarity and presents a matrix of interfaith learning objectives and provide direction for scholars, organisers, and teachers worldwide, as this article reviews a breadth of international literature and a variety of initiatives and their learning objectives. The main question that guides this article is: What are the learning objectives of the interfaith initiatives included in our scoping review, and how can we summarise and categorise these learning objectives in a matrix?

Methods

In this literature review, we followed the method of a scoping review, which begins with developing a protocol, followed by an extensive search of the international literature, with the aim of mapping literature to address a broader research question (Peters et al. 2015, 142). We followed the five stages of a scoping review by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), 1) identifying the research question, 2) identifying relevant studies, 3) study selection, 4) charting the data, and 5) collating, summarising and reporting the results.

Search strategy

We performed a search in the bibliographic databases ATLA Religion Database, PsycINFO, Eric, Scopus and Philosopher’s Index. We searched using the terms ‘interfaith’ (and neighbouring terms such as interreligious, religiously diverse, Muslim-Jewish, Christian-Hindu, and so on) and ‘competence’ (and closely related terms such as ‘skills’, ‘capabilities’, ‘quality’, ‘development’, et cetera).¹ While we were aware of the different connotations, meanings, and emphases of these terms and their synonyms, we aimed for a search strategy that includes as many relevant initiatives as possible.² A total of 7649 references were identified through database searching. Two reviewers screened these references independently in the review programme Rayyan QCRI and then compared and discussed their findings (HJV and AIL). We included a reference wherever it involved a description of one or more interfaith initiatives and described the learning objectives set for participants. Interfaith initiatives were defined as organised activities that intentionally include people from more than one faith or non-faith tradition (Pedersen 2004, 79). The reference was included if it was written in English, Dutch, French or German³ and published as a book, article or dissertation. Furthermore, since ‘the tragedy of September 11 (…) served as a stimulus for multifaith engagement at local, national and global levels’ and altered the numbers and types of initiatives (Halafoff 2013, 164), we only included references to initiatives that took place after 9/11. For the flow diagram, see Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the screening process.

Data analysis

Once we had identified the relevant references, we listed the learning objectives of the described initiatives. Three reviewers (HJV, AIL and MM) worked together to design a matrix that included all objectives in diverse rounds. After each round, the first author (HJV) recoded the objectives using this matrix to assess whether it covered all the objectives. Using this inductive approach with several rounds of coding, recoding, and adjusting the matrix, we designed a matrix with two axes that best suited the learning objectives we included according to our academic and pedagogic appraisal. The first axis refers to ‘the self’, ‘the other’ and ‘interaction’ on a personal or societal level. While we developed this axis inductively, based on the learning objectives, we can observe a parallel between this axis and the description of learning ‘about’, ‘from’, and ‘in’ religion (Halsall and Roebben 2006, 448; Grimmitt 1987, 1994). We also see parallels between this axis and the hermeneutic approach, which entails a ‘movement from the outside to the inside’ and a back-and-forth between self and other (Pollefeyt 2020).

Similarly, the second axis consists of knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA), which parallels Bloom’s (1956) three models of educational learning objectives. In the context of interfaith learning, we were inspired by the interfaith triangle, which consists of knowledge, attitudes and relationships.⁴ We follow Schwandt (1999, 452) in that knowledge can refer to both ‘a cognitive and intellectual achievement’ and the ability for participants ‘to grasp, to hear, get, catch, or comprehend the meaning of something,’ which is typically described as understanding. Skills can be defined as ‘the ability to perform a certain physical or mental task’ (Spencer and Spencer 1993, 11). Lastly, in line with Albarracín et al. (2005, 5), we describe attitudes as ‘evaluative tendencies, which can both be inferred from and have an influence on beliefs, affect, and overt behaviour’, and which include, for instance, self-concept and values as well (Spencer and Spencer 1993, 11). Similar to the interfaith triangle, we assume that each category influences and is interrelated with the other two.⁴

In conclusion, while we developed the matrix inductively, it is grounded in previous academic work in interfaith studies and education. The matrix suggested in this article should be seen as a first step that can engender further scholarly debate on interfaith learning objectives. In the conclusion of this article, we reflect on the possibilities and challenges relating to this matrix.

Results

Characteristics of the references included

In this scoping review, 87 references are included, of which 28 are theoretical and 59 empirical. These references also vary regarding their discipline (psychology, pedagogy, theology) and their purposes.⁵ Some authors describe an initiative they developed and facilitated themselves, while others describe an initiative from an outsider’s position. Together, these references portray 93 initiatives with an average of two to three learning objectives per initiative. The initiatives were located in 22 countries, and seven initiatives were situated in multiple countries. The majority of the initiatives (59) took place in North America, 56 of which were in the USA; 22 were located in Europe; seven in Asia; six in Africa; three in the Middle East; three in Australia; and one globally. Latin American initiatives were not represented in the references that we have included. In addition, the majority of initiatives (69) took place in colleges or primary and secondary schools, while the other initiatives were organised in a variety of other settings, such as women’s book clubs, environmentalist activities, or conferences.⁶

Matrix of interfaith learning objectives

We identified 12 main learning objectives and organised them into a matrix with two axes. We observed a distinction in these objectives between the self (one’s own position), the other (another person or worldview), and the interaction (the encounter between two or more parties). The interaction objectives are twofold: interactions on a personal level and on a societal level. Additionally, we distinguished objectives that focus on knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The matrix also indicates the number of times we found each of the learning objectives in the literature (see Table 1).

Table 1. Matrix of interfaith learning objectives.

	Self	Other	Interaction: Personal	Interaction: Societal
Knowledge	1. Knowledge about one’s own worldview *	2. Knowledge about other worldviews ***	3. Knowledge about each other’s perspective **	4. Knowledge about context *
Skills	5. Self-reflection and explication **	6. (Re)presenting other worldviews *	7. Communication skills ****	8. Leadership skills ****
Attitude	9. (Religious) self-awareness **	10. Appreciative attitude towards other worldviews **	11. Empathy ***	12. Awareness of injustice **

One * represents 1–10 initiatives that described this objective, two ** 11–20, et cetera.

In what follows, we summarise each learning objective and identify the different aspects and tendencies within each of them. We also highlight the approaches to this learning objective that typify the descriptions in the references we included. Since these results are based on the references we found, including their descriptions of the learning objectives, existing ambivalences regarding terminologies also persist in describing each learning objective. In the conclusion, we will reflect on the ambiguities of the results and the challenges they pose.

Knowledge

(1) Knowledge, Self: Knowledge About One’s Own Worldview

This first learning objective entails an understanding of one’s own worldview. It is identified as a learning objective by only a very few initiatives. One of these is the initiative that Callahan and Benner (2018) describe in their article. Their initiative aims to develop spiritual competences and sensitivity, which, according to the authors, can be found in knowledge about ‘one’s own beliefs about the world’ (Callahan and Benner 2018, 183). Such knowledge is needed to ensure that one understands ‘the limitations and biases associated with one’s worldview’ (Hodge 2018, 126, referred to in Callahan and Benner 2018). Overall, this learning objective implies an understanding of the different aspects, the history, the blind spots and the internal diversity of one’s own worldview.

(2) Knowledge, Other: Knowledge About Other Worldviews

In general, the initiatives whereby the aim is that participants gain knowledge about other worldviews focus on lived religion.⁷ While some initiatives describe acquiring general knowledge about world religions (e.g. Herzog et al. 2016), most initiatives concentrate on different types of knowledge. For example, students should learn as ‘embodied beings who inhabit a space, engage in physical activities, and undergo various sensory experiences’ (Long 2018, 79), and learn from lived experiences and exchange, with consideration of intra-worldview diversity (Allen 2016; Green et al. 2018; Locklin, Tiemeier, and Vento 2012; Hayik 2015; McCowan 2017). The initiatives tend to centralise the lived and experiential aspects of different worldviews because they want their participants to recognise the internal diversity within different worldviews (Green et al. 2018; Long 2018; Yuskaev 2013; Daddow et al. 2019; Mardell and Abo-Zena 2010).

(3) Knowledge, Interaction Personal: Knowledge About Each Other’s Perspective

The objective of gaining knowledge about each other’s perspectives relates closely to the two learning objectives described above. While these objectives focus either on the self or the other, this learning objective refers to knowledge about oneself and others through interaction. Even though the descriptions of this learning objective are not elaborate, the initiatives suggest an open and dialogical exchange in which participants interact with and learn about the experiential dimensions of their own and the other’s worldview. Various references make notice of interfaith, dialogic and participative knowledge as one of the initiative’s learning objectives (Acar 2013; Allen 2016; Gramstrup 2017, 2018; Lin, Edwards, and Khami 2016; Mason 2016; Mayer et al. 2016a, 2016b; McCowan 2017; Knysh et al. 2019). All of the initiatives that indicate this learning objective recognise the potential of learning in interaction.

(4) Knowledge, Interaction Societal: Knowledge About Context

Although never described in great detail, several initiatives accentuate the importance of learning about the context in which one works, lives or studies (Pallavicini 2016; Lyndes, Cadge, and Fitchett 2018; Epstein 2018). They tend to emphasise the importance of paying attention to injustices and conflicts and of understanding hidden positionalities and power relations; they also focus on knowledge about the sociopolitical structures of privilege and oppression in society (Hayik 2015, 94; Miller et al. 2012; Lin, Edwards, and Khami 2016). Furthermore, this learning objective addresses historical and psychological challenges and the deep, historical roots of many faith and non-faith perspectives (Allen 2016, 5). Participants learn to understand possible systematic challenges they may face as interfaith actors within their own contexts.

Skills

(5) Skills, Self: Self-Reflection and Explication

This learning objective consists of two central dimensions, often, but not always, described simultaneously: self-reflection and self-explication. These two dimensions complement each other, as is stressed by several references: in order to voice one’s opinions, explain one’s own behaviour and articulate one’s personal values, one needs first to reflect on them (Herzog, Harris, and Peifer 2018; Moyaert 2017; Bouchard 2009). However, some authors describe only one of the two dimensions. First, self-reflection skills are identified as the ability to reflect on one’s own values, opinions, prejudices, privileges and attitudes (Francis, Astley, and Parker 2016; Francis, Village, and Parker 2017; McCarthy 2007b; Sloan-Power 2013; Edwards 2017). On the other hand, self-explication skills are described as the ability to articulate and voice one’s beliefs, opinions, behaviour, and values (Luby 2014, 2020; Patel and Meyer 2012). Thus, this learning objective consists of reflecting on and articulating one’s beliefs and considering and explaining one’s behaviour. This reflection and explication can help participants understand how their own and others’ perspectives are influenced by their beliefs, values, privileges, and experiences to establish positive relations with others (Patel and Meyer 2012; Sorensen et al. 2009; referred to in Edwards 2017).

(6) Skills, Other: (Re)Presenting Other Worldviews

A small number of initiatives aim to develop the ability to compare and represent various worldviews, including their internal diversity. The descriptions of this learning objective within the literature we analysed were equivocal. However, we would illustrate this learning objective by giving an example: being aware of the various traditions’ days of rest and food preferences and arranging the event accordingly when organising an interfaith event. In other words, this learning objective is about one’s ability to compare different worldviews and to apply knowledge about them in one’s interfaith action (Stoltzfus and Raffel 2009; Zain et al. 2018; Bhatia and Pathak-Shelat 2019).

(7) Skills, Interaction Personal: Communication Skills

Numerous initiatives set communication skills as one of their central learning objectives, although they do not refer to a common theoretical framework in their descriptions. This lack of consensus is seen in the variety of communication skills identified: to listen attentively and appreciatively, to search for meaning and values together, to engage with difference and conflict in interactions, to ask questions, to share personal experiences, and to communicate one’s worldview in a ‘language’ that others can understand (Bouchard 2009; Brockman 2016; Duckworth et al. 2019; Hicks and Tran‐Parsons 2013; Curpanen 2013; Moyaert 2017; O’Keefe 2009). In some of the references, a specific professional context is described, such as the professional communication skills of counsellors and health care providers (Pearce et al. 2020; Shadbolt 2017) and the skills teachers need to interact with their students (Abu-Nimer, Nasser, and Ouboulahcen 2016; Ambroson 2013; Bender-Szymanski 2013; Mambu 2016; Mohamed 2019; Ramarajan and Runell 2007; Helskog 2015). Most of these initiatives have in common that they aim to get their participants to learn to listen, ask questions, and search for shared values.

(8) Skills, Interaction Societal: Leadership Skills

As with communication skills, leadership skills are commonly identified as a learning objective. Leadership skills can be described as the skills participants need to impact broader communities and address global challenges. This learning objective is about moving from dialogue to societal action and striving for social cohesion. In the descriptions of this objective, we encountered a mix of societal challenges for which leadership is required, such as protecting nature and fighting for climate change (Bjork 2019; Del Vecchio 2018; McCarthy 2007c; Tyler, Valek, and Rowland 2005; Warner, Brook, and Shaw 2012), against injustice or oppression (Bhadra 2018; Diaz-Edelman 2014; Edwards 2017; Gardner 2019; Lin, Edwards, and Khami 2016; Lindsay 2018; Miles and Mallinckrodt 2017; Pallavicini 2016; Weller 2017; Lewis 2012), or even combatting the abuse of the elderly (Proehl 2012). Many initiatives that centred on leadership were organised by the Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC). They describe several leadership skills: the ability to narrate a vision of interfaith cooperation, to bring people together, and to build social capital (Basham and Hughes 2012; Campbell and Lane 2014; Hicks and Tran‐Parsons 2013; Jendzejec 2018; Krebs 2015; Patel and Meyer 2011). In conclusion, this learning objective is about acting on behalf of social cohesion and societal challenges and inspiring others to do so.

Attitude

(9) Attitude, Self: (Religious) Self-Awareness

According to some of the references included, ‘most of us are unaware of the entirety of our unconscious biases, behaviours, and projections, as they have become so ingrained through experiences and social, cultural and religious means’ (Mohammed-Ashrif 2018, 362). Hence, this learning objective is about becoming aware of one’s own beliefs, purposes, prejudices and privileges and learning how they influence one’s perceptions and interactions. It has a close overlap with the skill of self-reflection/explication, but several authors also explicitly choose to use the term ‘awareness’ (Akdag et al. 2019; Ferreira and Schulze 2016; McMinn et al. 2014; Miller et al. 2012; Pearce et al. 2020) even though the precise distinction remains questionable. Rather than actively reflecting on and voicing one’s identity, this learning objective is about one’s self-concept and an awareness of one’s values. Besides awareness of participants’ own beliefs and stereotypes, participants may also need to develop an awareness of systematic stereotyping and perceptions of their identities among society at large (Ezzani and Brooks 2019, 790; Mason 2016; Wilson, Abram, and Anderson 2010). In other words: not only should participants learn to be aware of their own worldviews, purposes, prejudices and privileges, they should also become aware of the societal perceptions of their identity.

(10) Attitude, Other: Appreciative Attitude Towards Other Worldviews

A variety of different terms are used within this learning objective, and the interpretation is often unclear.⁸ Some authors describe this objective as an attitude of respect and civility towards the other (Beauchamp 2012; Haynes 2011; Hussien, Hashim, and Mokhtar 2017; Kilman 2007; Hayden 2010; Larson and Shady 2013). Other authors use ‘tolerance’ (Bhadra 2018; Holden 2013) or ‘openness’(Buser and Buser 2014) towards different worldviews and diversity. Furthermore, several initiatives aim at a general attitude of appreciation, either as an attitude in itself (Fink et al. 2014; Holland and Walker 2018; McMinn et al. 2014; Pearce et al. 2020; Stoltzfus and Raffel 2009), or in the context of ‘appreciative knowledge’ vis-à-vis other worldviews (Naumenko and Naumenko 2016; Patel and Meyer 2012; Poppinga, Larson, and Shady 2019). While the terms encompass slightly different characteristics, all of them appear to centralise the development of a positive attitude towards the religious other or towards religious diversity in general; they refer to an inclination to see religious differences not as a threat but as a source of inspiration (Eck 2003; referred to in Stoltzfus and Raffel 2009).

(11) Attitude, Interaction Personal: Empathy

Although this learning objective is not described in detail by the authors or initiatives included, it appears to consists of both affective and cognitive aspects: the ability to take in another’s viewpoint on the one hand, and the ability to experience the feelings of another on the other hand (Chlopan et al. 1985; Mayer and Salovey 1993; referred to in Bhadra 2018; Davis 1996; referred to in Miller et al. 2012). Several initiatives aim at this empathetic attitude (Bhadra 2018; Callahan and Benner 2018; Miles and Mallinckrodt 2017; Pearce et al. 2020; Miller et al. 2012). We can grasp that this learning objective is about viewing oneself and the other through the eyes of that religious other.⁹

(12) Attitude, Interaction Societal: Awareness of Injustice

This final learning objective is about developing awareness and motivation concerning societal issues, engaging with broader societal challenges, and finding a sense of urgency to act for improvement (Hoover and Douglas 2018; Bhatia and Pathak-Shelat 2019). Although a few initiatives only identify this objective, several of them describe critical awareness as an essential aspect of interfaith learning, which requires the ability to identify sources of oppression and power dynamics and to understand the way these dynamics are imported into the interfaith environment (Edwards 2017; Ezzani and Brooks 2019): ‘injustice and inequity are central drivers of conflict, preventing a culture of peace. Central themes are identifying sources of oppression and considering the power dynamics influencing the students’ environment’ (Duckworth et al. 2019, 238). Thus, this learning objective is about the participants’ awareness of society as a place where (religious) privilege and power are ever present and about developing the values to being committed to bringing about a more just society.

Conclusion and discussion

In this article, our purpose was to identify the learning objectives of interfaith initiatives in the scholarly literature and to summarise and categorise these objectives in a matrix. In order to do so, we systematically collected and analysed references in which interfaith initiatives were described, resulting in the analysis of 87 references that together portrayed 93 interfaith initiatives. We identified the learning objectives of these initiatives and, using an iterative inductive approach, categorised them in a matrix of interfaith learning objectives. The matrix comprises the self, the other, and interaction on a personal and societal level along one axis, and knowledge, skills, and attitude along the other, making a total of twelve learning objectives.

Up to now, the literature has offered no shared framework with which to analyse and formulate the learning objectives of interfaith initiatives. This inconsistency was visible at two levels. First, interfaith scholars used contrasting terms when discussing interfaith learning objectives, which hindered the advancement of the scholarly field of interfaith studies. Second, organisers of interfaith initiatives were facing challenges in clearly formulating their learning objectives and organising their programme and evaluation according to those learning objectives. The purpose of this scoping review was to achieve more clarity by summarising and categorising the learning objectives of existing interfaith initiatives in a matrix.

This scoping review has taken a first step towards achieving more clarity about interfaith learning objectives. Although the matrix we have suggested can and should be subject to more scholarly debate, it can nevertheless stimulate organisers of interfaith initiatives to consider and explicate their learning objectives. Clarifying their learning objectives will also facilitate evaluating their initiatives since comparing objectives and outcomes can illuminate whether the learning objectives were met. Furthermore, the matrix can contribute to a shared scholarly language regarding participants’ development in interfaith initiatives, as it is based on the empirical reality of interfaith initiatives and their learning objectives.

Nevertheless, as the matrix is based on the descriptions of existing interfaith initiatives, the ambiguity within the field was inevitably imported into the matrix, which became visible in several ways. First, a myriad of synonyms was used for the key terms ‘interfaith’ and ‘learning objective’. In the search strategy and analysis of this scoping review, we decided not to make a distinction based on the wording of the concept ‘interfaith’ because we aimed to find as many relevant initiatives as possible. In addition, while presented as 12 separate and demarcated learning objectives, some overlap, some cover multiple dimensions, and some are not as coherent as the matrix would suggest. As a result, not each learning objective could be described equally wholly and coherently. More specifically, the attitude learning objectives were often described ambivalently, which prevented a clear definition of terms such as ‘empathy’, ‘appreciation’ and ‘awareness’. We can understand this ambiguity concerning the attitude learning objectives through Spencer’s iceberg model, which explains that attitudes, self-concept, and values are more challenging to identify, assess and develop than knowledge and skills (Spencer and Spencer 1993, 11). Therefore, this matrix can be seen as a first framework that must be further defined and clarified.

Furthermore, using the scoping review method has enabled us to collect and analyse the learning objectives of a large diversity of interfaith initiatives. At the same time, however, relevant initiatives outside of bibliographical databases may have been missed. Further research should consider how this matrix relates to initiatives not described in scholarly work in the languages included. Such research should primarily focus on Latin American and other initiatives outside of Europe and the U.S., as these initiatives were under-represented in this scoping review.

As shown in Table 1, many initiatives aim to develop participants’ leadership skills, while only a few aim to promote knowledge and awareness about societal issues relating to injustice, power, and privilege. As a result of this imbalance, some organisers may expect participants to improve society and interact with diverse stakeholders without properly examining power and privilege. This observation reflects challenges in the field that have already been acknowledged: ‘there are elements of the [interfaith] movement that fail to address key issues related to religious conflict, prejudice, and oppression’ (Edwards 2018, 172). Hence, this scoping review underlines the importance of implementing structural awareness and knowledge about social injustice, power, and oppression in our societies, now and historically, and including them in interfaith learning initiatives.

In conclusion, we recommend that organisers consider the value-laden contexts of their initiatives and avoid implicit and general descriptions in their learning objectives. The matrix of interfaith learning objectives should, therefore, be seen as the first contribution to this recommendation, as an incentive to explicate one’s learning objective and to describe and translate these learning objectives according to the local context of an initiative, and as a stimulus to reflect on the histories and contemporary issues of power, privilege and conflict in interfaith spaces. This article is a first step towards building a shared scholarly framework to guide and support the organisation and evaluation of interfaith initiatives. The matrix can stimulate organisers of interfaith initiatives to clarify their learning objectives and, consequently, develop coherent and evaluable initiatives. In the end, participants of interfaith initiatives will benefit from coherently organised initiatives that can be evaluated and improved.

Acknowledgments

We thank librarian Linda Schoonmade of the VUmc for her role in developing the search strategy of this scoping review. This article was inspired by the pioneering work of setting up a pedagogical framework and conducting empirical research on interfaith competency in the U.S. campus context by the Interfaith Youth Core, the critical exchange on indicators of interfaith success with Katherine O’Lone of the Woolf Institute, and participation in a peer learning community with several interfaith organisations active in DM&E, moderated by the Alliance for Peacebuilding. In the spirit of interfaith work, we look forward to participating in a community of scholars/practitioners to further reflect on the question of how to evaluate interfaith work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hannah J. Visser

Hannah J. Visser is a PhD candidate in interfaith learning at the Faculty of Religion and Theology of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU). In her research project, she focuses on (the conceptual and empirical nature of) interfaith learning objectives and competencies, and she reflects on the question of how to evaluate participants’ development in interfaith initiatives.

Anke I. Liefbroer

Anke I. Liefbroer is an assistant professor of Psychology of Religion at the Faculty of Religion and Theology of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) and the Tilburg School of Catholic Theology. She obtained her PhD degree at VU, focusing on the empirical study of interfaith spiritual care.

Marianne Moyaert

Marianne Moyaert is a full professor of Comparative Theology and Hermeneutics of Interreligious Dialogue at the Faculty of Religion and Theology of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU). She is also a guest lecturer at the KU Leuven, Belgium, teaching Jewish-Christian relations.

Gerdien D. Bertram-Troost

Gerdien D. Bertram-Troost is a full professor of Religious Education at the Faculty of Religion and Theology of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU). Her main research interests lie in the fields of education, (developmental) psychology, theology, and their overlap.

Notes

1. The search strategy was determined in consultation with a librarian of the VUmc. The full search strategies for all databases can be found in the Supplementary Information. This information can be requested by the first author.

2. A reflection on the terms and their meaning is beyond the scope of this article. For an elaboration on the distinction between terms such as ‘interfaith’, ‘interreligious’, ‘multifaith’ and ‘religiously diverse’, see for example Longhurst (2020), Miedema (2017), or Swidler (2014). For the differences between terms such as ‘competency’, ‘learning objective’, and ‘outcome’, see for example Hartel and Allen Foegeding (2004), Hoffmann (1999), Hutmacher (1997), or Kennedy, Hyland, and Ryan (2009).

3. These are the languages the authors are familiar with.

4. See: https://www.ifyc.org/resources/defining-interfaith-triangle.

5. Some books or articles aim to introduce a scholarly, conceptual debate while others offer practical recommendations for organising an initiative. This confirms the observation of interfaith studies being an interdisciplinary field (Del Vecchio and Silverman 2018).

6. We can think of various explanations and considerations regarding the characteristics presented here. A reflection on these characteristics would be an interesting topic for future research.

7. By lived religion, we follow McGuire’s (2008, 3) definition: ‘religion as expressed and experienced in the lives of individuals’.

8. We will further reflect on this observation in the discussion section.

9. Compare the descriptions of perspective taking by Losert, Bräuer, and Schweitzer (2018) and empathy by Cornille (2010).