Online religious learning: digital epistemic authority and self-socialization in religious communities

ABSTRACT

Over the past two decades, the internet has become a central platform affording lay-learners access to a multiplicity of experts. While these outlets empower lay-learners, they create competition amongst clerical and knowledge authorities. This article addresses the question: how is religious authority understood and negotiated by learners, and in turn, how do they evaluate authoritative sources. Twenty-six in-depth think-aloud interviews were conducted with Religious-Zionists in Israel on their internet sourcing practices. Findings uncovered four strategies employed when sourcing information online: (1) Generating a reliable source network based on the learners’ social and primordial affiliations. (2) Complexity based sourcing practices stemming from learners’ uncertainty in their ability to autonomously attain a satisfying answer. (3) Fitting an appropriate source to queries based on their availability and prestige. (4) Negotiating learner's autonomy in a particular field of knowledge based on the social or epistemic norms that govern it.

KEYWORDS:

• Epistemic authority
• digital religion
• online learning
• Epistemic autonomy

Introduction

The emergence of the internet revolutionized the world of religious study and its learners’ epistemic practices by creating an entirely new way for individuals, lay and expert alike, to research and find information. Websites providing access to knowledge regarding all walks of life increasingly gained public trust (Mothe and Sahut 2018). This trend includes religious websites, which have garnered immense popularity (Golan 2015) and have become dynamic platforms that spark discourse, practices and modes of leadership. As religious information hubs materialized, they gradually gained authority among religious users. These sites provide articles on religious topics, links to repositories of sacred texts, and access to religious clergy in the form of Q&A, which are either published on the site or answered privately.

Internet use for religious study has continued to rise among religious Jews who consider learning to be a way of life and adhere to a demanding set of rules and prescribed practices (Cohen, Siegel, and Rozin 2003). Traditionally, schools and religious seminaries provide an overall framework to train individuals to autonomously navigate religious texts, whereas immediate networks (such as peers, family and local clerics) furnish an immediate access to knowledge that is socially sanctioned. The emergence of online religious texts and forums has become an alternative source of authority that competes with traditional sources guiding religious praxis.

Drawing on previous notions of networked individualism, which describe how traditional communal affiliation has been replaced or supplemented by individual based internet networks (Rainie and Wellman 2012), this study focused on online religious learning and its sources of authority. Given the increasing use and proliferation of online religious sources, together with their apparent effect on traditional authoritative structures, we examine the epistemic practices of devout learners. More specifically, we ask how online religious authority is constructed, socialized and employed by devout learners.

To explore this question, this study centered on the Religious Zionist Orthodox community in Israel. The Religious Zionist community can be characterized as engaged in a continuous dialectic between modern and traditional ideals. In contrast to enclaved groups that exhibit resistance to technology or the internet (e.g., the Amish or the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox, see Zimmerman-Umble and Weaver-Zercher 2008; Golan 2015), the Religious Zionist sector integrates and legitimizes the use of new media in their everyday lives (Golan and Don 2022) and are thus open to both traditional and new media sources of information.

By exploring online forms of authority and epistemic methods of approaching religious knowledge this study aimed to shed light on the nature of informal forms of distance religious learning and emergent online religious learning practices, attitudes among believers, and the contemporary epistemic worlds of religious learners.

Literature review

The learning sciences and the sociological study of digital religion have explored specific characteristics of online authority and epistemology. To better understand how religious authority is constructed and employed by believers online, this section examines digital religion in terms of platforming outreach, community and education, online epistemic practices among the Religious Zionist community in Israel.

1. Digital religion

Over the past two decades there has been growing interest in religious manifestations that involve new media. In a well-known early discussion, Helland made the distinction between ‘online religion’, in which users obtain information about religion, and ‘religion online’, where users experience and participate in religion (Helland 2000). While these distinctions are often blurred (Young 2004; Helland 2005), they form fundamental frames to consider religious activities and their relationship to the internet since they can help clarify more recent findings reported in empirical research on religious communities’ online engagement.

The literature on new media and religion has centered on sociological aspects of this trend. It has highlighted how religion has been affected by the decentralized and interconnected properties of the internet (Campbell 2012), and how the internet's secular rules and logics mediate religious information (Hjarvard 2008; Lövheim and Lynch 2011) while also supporting virtual religious spaces that cultivate identity, meaning and community building. These spaces are where new forms of religious outreach and authority are cultivated and take hold (Ingold 2010; Hoover and Echchaibi 2014). The COVID-19 pandemic amplified the role played by virtual spaces in religious life by forcing rituals and experiences to take place online (Campbell 2020).

While the sociological and communicative aspects of digital religion are a primary focal point of digital religious research, the learning practices of believers and the epistemologies embedded in them have been understudied. As the internet has transitioned from a unidirectional platform offering access to information to an interactive platform where users can create knowledge as well as retrieve it, new forms of knowledge bases have emerged. Some are centralized around experts, such as webmd.com while others, such as wikipedia.com, are decentralized and allow anyone to engage in knowledge creation (Hoadley and Yael 2019). Accordingly, religious websites offering repositories of religious texts, discussion forums and access to experts in the form of Q&A have become a primary source of knowledge and discourse in religious communities.

To better understand the significance of these new sources of religious knowledge, their implications for religious authorities and their effects on believers, this study drew on research methodologies from the learning sciences to uncover religious users’ learning practices and epistemic strategies. Specifically, it focuses on how learners define and, in turn, identify reliable sources of religious knowledge.

• 2. Online learning, sourcing and religious authority

The emergence of online learning platforms has not only changed public access to information, but more broadly the nature of who possesses knowledge, what their roles are, and what power structures allow or impede access to knowledge creation, dissemination and application (Hoadley and Yael 2019). Since the emergence of computer and internet-based learning, the growth of these platforms supplement and replace traditional epistemic practices as MOOCs and e-learning modules have supplemented formal learning, and YouTube videos, Wikis or Q&A fora have generated new ways to assemble, co-construct and consume knowledge (Burbules 2006). This has created a competitive marketplace of knowledge that competes for learners’ attention and authority, as well as emergent online epistemic practices that challenge traditional sources of authority.

Epistemic practices can be seen as socially constructed ways that group members communicate, justify, assess, and legitimize knowledge claims (Kelly 2008). Moreover, in effect these practices mediate, filter and frame information into knowledge that is viewed as acceptable to enter into discourse. While most studies highlighted this process in scientific and educational contexts (Cunningham and Kelly 2017; Kienhues, Jucks, and Bromme 2020), less attention has been devoted to religious learners’ epistemic praxis, particularly in online learning. Researchers have modeled users’ online learning practices by employing a think-aloud methodology. A research methodology in which respondents are prompted to say everything on their mind during an online learning task. Barzilai, Tzadok, and Eshet-Alkalai (2015) highlighted several epistemic strategies learners describe while researching online information, one of the most prominent of which is sourcing.

Sourcing refers to the activity of seeking, evaluating and utilizing a source to validate and make sense of information (Barzilai, Tzadok, and Eshet-Alkalai 2015, 738). When seeking scientific data, this process is mostly based on a premise underlying scientific thinking which values skepticism and empirical reasoning. Thus, sourcing can be seen as a form of agency that crystallizes knowledge authority. When a learner considers that a particular source is more trustworthy than another, this in itself is an acknowledgment of authority that is unrelated to the reasoning behind trusting that particular source. This agency differs from the acquisition of traditional and religious knowledge which often relies on institutional learning, dogma and strict adherence to de-facto religious authority.

Thus identifying a source of information draws on a set of assumptions about what constitutes a legitimate authority who can reliably transmit knowledge. A legitimate source is one that is acceptable or normative within a given population (Golan 2015). In the Weberian tradition that focuses on power dynamics, legitimate authorities derive their status from their charismatic, traditional or legal-bureaucratic standing (Weber 1954). In the religious context, the social status of clergy, and the community's spiritual elite play a role in assigning authority. Thus, it is likely that clerical legitimacy will extend into believers’ online religious sourcing practices. To better understand these issues, the current study aimed to contribute to scholarship on sourcing and epistemic thinking to address the issue of religious sourcing in the information era. More specifically, it examined how believers’ extensive access to information shapes their legitimation of authoritative sources and sourcing practices. Identifying these sourcing practices should shed light on the loci of power within the religious community, while documenting the informal educational praxis of its contemporary believers.

• 3. Theoretical framework

Based on the literature review, we outline a conceptual framework to discuss the nature of religious sourcing in the information society. We begin by positing that authority for sourcing information and engaging in religious learning is based on two key facets: autonomy vs heteronomous authority and centralized vs distributed authority. First, while autonomy suggests a legitimized pathway for believers to select a religious interpretation and practice with minimal sanctions, heteronomy denotes an extreme subjugation (or dominance, following the Frankfurt school legacy, see Dahms 2021) and adherence to external forces, including the literary interpretations of the canons, leadership or peer pressures, much akin to dogmatism. Accordingly, fundamentalist societies are often viewed as leaning on heteronomous authority and rigid following of religious leadership and canon. This includes the following of sages and top clerics and a selective retrieval of doctrines, religious symbols and beliefs. This notably includes sacred texts (e.g., the Bible, the Qur’an), to form what is known as religious scripturalism (Stadler 2009) which serves as an attempt to foster a pious society. Second, centralized authority (most saliently demonstrated in Roman Catholicism) denotes a hierarchical formation of priests that adhere to a single authority. In contrast, distributed authority refers to the allocation of authority to several sources, all of which do not have exclusive access to a body of knowledge, and whose authority relies on local, popular or customary leaders, rather than a clear institutionalized center, most noteworthy among Islamic and Jewish traditions (Turner 2007).

For believers, the sense-making process of external information entails an undertaking of verifying the author of a text, evaluating what his relevant expertise is in the field and discerning what her/his motivations were to provide the information. Accordingly, for an autonomous believer of a decentralized religious authority, this entails a labor of identifying and vetting sources to manage their cosmology, worldviews and practices.

Sourcing refers to the activity of seeking, evaluating and utilizing a source to validate and make sense of information. Analyzing learners’ metacognitive process of sourcing, Chinn and Rinehart (2016) distinguish between learners’ goals and motivations to ask a question (autonomous or heteronomous), and the tools by which a user may evaluate the answer. This evaluation underlines the ways that users go about answering questions that require external authority (centralized/distributed). Accordingly, juxtaposing the two facets we can discern four prototypical outcomes that depict religious learners’ metacognitive process as described in the following table.

In Table 1, we can observe the triangulation of the types of knowledge authority and sourcing. In cell A, autonomous sourcing is juxtaposed with centralized authority. This implies that learners are free to ask questions, yet they may receive information from a single outlet. Cell B (autonomous/distributed) represents the freedom to ask questions and receive information from a multitude of sources. Cell C (heteronomous/centralized) indicates that the learner is limited in the range of legitimate questions they can ask and is obligated to gain information from a single source. Finally, Cell D (heteronomous/distributed) suggests that learners are limited in the questions they may ask. This leads to a limited number of answers. While multiple sources are allowed, it can be assumed that the answers would be very similar.

Table 1 . Learners’ metacognitive process by sourcing and knowledge authority.

		Knowledge authority
	Authority/Sourcing	Centralized	Distributed
Sourcing	Autonomous	A (+-)	B (++)
	Heteronomous	C (++)	D (−+)

Through this conceptual framework we aim to examine how religious authority is understood and negotiated by learners, and in turn, how they evaluate authoritative sources with respect to their own opinions and worldviews.

• 4. Context: the religious zionist community

The Religious Zionist (RZ) community is a subgroup within the Israeli Jewish mosaic. Rooted in the transformative social movements of Judaism in nineteenth century Eastern European Jewry, and often compared to the Modern Orthodox community in the United States, the community adheres to traditional Jewish laws (halacha). Alongside religious observance, it also embraces aspects of modernity, including its technological, political and economic features. RZ earn college degrees, consume popular culture, are avid users of the internet, and are known for cultivating a nationalist (hawkish) ideology with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Feige 2009; Aran and Hassner 2013). Enlistment in the Israeli army and polity is a central tenet of the community’s collective identity.

In Israel, the public school system includes religious public schools known as MAMAD in which the teachers are religious, prayer is part of the daily schedule, and classes are segregated by gender. Although there are some religious public high schools, a 2012 report by the Ministry of Education¹ estimated that 58% of RZ students attend private religious high schools known as a Yeshiva Tichonit for men and Ulpenot for women which require significantly more hours of religious study than the public system provides. The report further estimated that of the male students who graduate from a RZ high school, approximately one third continue to study in a religious institution of higher learning known as a Yeshivat Hesder which demands at least 3.5 years of religious coursework. About 20% attend a Mechina (pre-military service educational institution) which delivers 1–2 years of religious education. Women, on the other hand, are not expected to invest as much time in religious studies, nor are they expected to enroll in the army. Instead, most of them are involved in programs paralleling the military draft but in civilian service settings. A small percent of religious women engage in one to two years of religious learning at a Midrasha, a religious institution of higher learning for women, either before or after their civil service.

As a result of the extensive religious educational investment in the RZ community, as well as the continuous learning that is expected and provided informally via lectures and study groups throughout adult life, members of the RZ community accumulate a wealth of religious knowledge. In turn, their learning practices and research strategies draw on a considerable amount of knowledge, as well as a high level of religious literacy. Given the substantial formal investment in religious learning, the high demands for devotional lore and the flourishing of digital platforms that cater to this population, the RZ community provides an optimal case study for the examination of online religious learning practices and emerging epistemologies of religion.

Method

To better understand the ways in which online religious authority is constructed by observant learners, this study focused on the learners from the RZ community and the nature of epistemic religious thinking with respect to the evaluation and integration of online religious sources. The goal was to explore how online information translates into the everyday lives of community members and how it compares to their use of offline religious sources.

Data collection

The research design consisted of a real-time observation process to monitor online religious learning. This served to examine the epistemic processes and sourcing practices of religious online users, by drawing on Barzilai & Zohar’s methodology (2012) for the examination of learners’ science sourcing. It involved a two-step process that consisted of a think-aloud task which focused on the religious learners’ epistemic processes and strategies. This was followed by a semi-structured interview that dealt with their background and perceptions of online religious authority.

The sample consisted of 26 members of the RZ community who varied in their religious stringency, age and gender. All the male participants had between 2 and 10 years of post-high school education in a religious seminary. The female participants had at most a year of post-high school religious education, which is a common educational track for men and women in the RZ community.

The participants were presented with questions on religious observance and were then asked to research the answer online and come up with an answer they were satisfied with. The questions varied in topic and were presented as open questions that required personal inquiry. The participants were allowed to use any source (s) they wanted. A computer with internet access (including, upon request, the Proyekt Hashut app., a digital resource for rabbinic literature) was available.

Initially, a list of questions was adapted from an ask-the-rabbi website. These questions were vetted in preliminary interviews to verify that the interviewees would engage with them. Most of the interviewees also had questions they had asked recently in which case those questions were used in the task (see appendix for example questions).

The participants were requested to come up with an answer, and the process was recorded and accompanied by a reflective think-out-loud session on their methodology and the justification for their conclusion. The task was carried out in an ecological setting in which the researcher was present. The think-aloud protocol was loosely based on the following structure (after finding an answer to the question):

1. What caused you to ask the question? (Asked if the subject initiated the question)

2. How did you decide which website(s) to look at?

3. What was unsatisfactory with the other websites you looked at?

4. Are you familiar with the religious authority behind this information? Does it matter?

5. How do you know you can trust this source?

6. What would have caused you not to trust this source?

Aside from the search task, the participants were asked general questions about their use of online sources for religious information and their perception of online religious authority. The following was the interview protocol:

1. When was the last time you asked a question about religion online?

   • o Why did you ask it?

2. How do you typically ask religious questions?

3. Is it important that they are all answered by a Rabbi?

4. Do you prefer asking online or offline?

5. Are there questions you prefer to ask online rather than in person?

   • o Which? Why?

6. Are there questions you prefer to ask in person rather than online?

   • o Which? Why?

7. Are there questions you prefer to research yourself and not ask anyone?

   • o Which? Why?

8. Are you different from your parents in your approach to accessing religious information?

   • o How so?

9. How do you interpret the statement ‘Make for yourself a rabbi’ (A famous religious dictum taken from the Ethics of the Fathers (1:6) colloquially understood to mean that one should seek out a personalized religious authority).

The interviews and think-alouds were recorded, transcribed and uploaded to Dedoose mixed-method software. Drawing on categorization techniques (Strauss and Corbin 1998) the texts were coded and categorized using Marshall and Rossman’s (2011) four stages of qualitative data analysis: data organization, category generation, theme and pattern identification, emergent hypothesis testing and alternative explanations exploration. The coding process was based on the principles described in Strauss and Corbin (1998). To solidify the reliability, the data were reviewed by two independent researchers. Discrepancies in coding were resolved through dialogue, to achieve a high level of inter-rater reliability (Olesen et al. 1994).

It should be noted that the study was reviewed by the University IRB (Approval no. 19/140).

Findings

The findings pointed to the participants’ agency in determining their source of authority. The interviews identified four strategies for determining their preferred source of authority and their modus operandi to obtain religious information that supports their daily praxis.

1. Generating a reliable source network

All the participants engaged in an initial step of careful source selection to forge a trustworthy source of religious knowledge. This involved vetting the sources as a function of the participants’ identity, the source’s prestige, and what they viewed as the relevance and quality of the content. This process is detailed below.

• 1.1 Primordial (identity) networks

Scholars have long understood primordialism as an affect and a set of beliefs which manifest in discourses that underline the essential connections binding a group, ancestry or progeny. Primordialism often underscores the foundations of a group and its ability to substantiate itself (Verkuyetn 2005; Weinreich 2009). In this vein, we view primordialism as an essential pillar of religious authority. When asked about their research process to find answers to religious questions, most of the interviewees stated that they used websites associated with the RZ community. However, in some cases, when their identities touched on variants within the RZ community that overlapped with other groups, the interviewees went beyond the networks of RZ to search information from alternative sources. The participants referred to their ethnic or social background as a factor in deciding which religious authorities they trusted. When asked what websites he would trust, one interviewee responded:

It seems to me [that I am] more conservative, because Hidabrut (a website for religious responsa) is somewhat more Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) so in general it's really not for me, but when you ask me about halakhic questions then yes I tend to see myself as more connected to them than Beit Hillel (a religious responsa forum) for example, which is considered more liberal.

This interviewee self-identifies with the RZ community, rather than the Ultra-Orthodox. However, he still consults Ultra-Orthodox websites because he views them as more conservative on Halacha. This dual identity is common amongst the RZ variant known as Chardal, which is a combination of ‘Haredi’ and ‘Dati Leumi’. This identity fosters careful selection of the categories of religious life which are most likely to be answered appropriately by Haredi or RZ rabbis.

Another interviewee made an even starker observation:

I looked at the Hidabrut website and sent in the question and they answered … I chose Hidabrut because I know them … They always talk about Sephardic halacha, they talk about how you really need to respect that whole thing. [Hidabrut is good for me because it is] A - based on the teachings of Maran (Rabbi Joseph Karo – a prominent sixteenth century Sephardic rabbi) and B - the Rabbis on the website are all students of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (a modern Sephardic figurehead). These are the kinds of Psakim (religious rulings) that I am looking for.

As a Sephardic person, I know Hidabrut has a roster of Sefardi Rabbis that can answer my questions. I would never ask a question about the army there, but on Halacha yes.

An important differentiating feature between the RZ community and the Ultra-Orthodox community in Israel is its approach to army service. While Religious Zionists see the army as a sacred duty, the Ultra-Orthodox, and especially their leadership, have many issues with army service and a large percentage of the Ultra-Orthodox do not serve in the army.

In this response, the interviewee differentiates between being a member of the religious Sephardic community and the RZ community. As he says, the Hidabrut websites offer him a roster of Sephardic rabbis who will answer questions on issues he feels appropriate for them, but he would not approach them on issues regarding the army, since they do not correspond to his world view. The interviewee mentions that he is looking for religious authorities who are ‘students of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’. The late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was a leader of the Sephardic Ultra-Orthodox community and was the chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel.

The emphasis on the Sephardic background of the Rabbi was not necessarily based on the assumption that only they could answer the religious questions. The interviewees acknowledged that they could get the answers from Rabbis who were not Sephardic as well:

[When researching a question on Google, I might say] ok, this is what Google says, I have someone to rely on, even if he is Ashkenazi, I’ll rely on him, better than nothing, and later I will check with a Sephardi.

In this quote, the interviewee says that he will rely on an Ashkenazi Rabbi, if need be, and act according to his ruling until he can clarify the matter with a Sephardic rabbi. The implication is that the need for the Rabbi to be Sephardic rests more heavily on the shared background with the Rabbi as opposed to the quality of information received.

• 1.2 Communal information hubs

Learners, consumers and other online users often revisit popular websites that are branded as community based, which enhances their trustworthiness, prestige and popularity. Similarly, religious websites identified with RZ have gained immense popularity in the Israeli public and have become meaningful and trustworthy hubs.

The interviewees often mentioned RZ websites and Rabbis and specifically the website Yeshiva (yeshiva.org.il). Yeshiva is identified with Yeshivat Har-Bracha and Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, a prominent institution and religious authority in the RZ community. Other popular websites for religious information were kipa.co.il offering online responsa and non-RZ communal hubs such as hidabrut.org and chabad.org (ultra-Orthodox websites) which were mentioned with the caveat that their advice should be taken with a grain of salt. Finally, the interviewees also mentioned websites that specialized in particular areas of religious life such as kosharot.co.il that deals with dietary law, and yoatzot.org that specializes in laws of sexual conduct and religious purity.

When asked ‘How did you know the answer you found is correct’. One interviewee said:

It cites sources - first of all the website is “Yeshiva” which is a website you can trust. And I am sure they also say who wrote the article, one sec - here! ‘Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, Rosh Yeshiva (head of school) of Har Bracha and the Rabbi of the community.’

Other interviewees referred to the area of expertise and the ease with which they could arrive at an answer.

For this kind of question (regarding dietary law) I would go directly to Kosharot, they have a special click-through program to answer these kinds of questions.

My wife looks up questions regarding purity herself, there is the yoatzot website that is pretty responsive.

• 1.3 Content based (meritocratic)

Aside from the identity-based aspects and issues of venue prestige regarding the websites and the background of the religious authorities, the interviewees often mentioned the content and its presentation as a reason for trust, referring to the merit of the religious information, rather than the prestige of its source. In line with Metzger (2007) who examined credibility assessments in online information hubs, when asked how she knew she could trust an article without reviewing the author, one interviewee said:

Usually I rely on the fact that these articles are written by someone who knows Halacha, and they won’t just write something without knowing. So I think you can rely on it, because people won’t deliberately write something misleading … This article is written very professionally, and shows that they know Halacha, he even cites sources and proves it with passages from the Bible.

The esthetics, style and sources of the article prompted this user to trust the site. In addition, this interviewee points out that Halacha is not an area of inquiry with much fake news, and that if someone puts in the time to write an article on non-polarized topics such as the proper amount of wine in a goblet needed for a blessing (the question she was researching) – they have little to gain from lying about it. Moreover, they would not write about it if it did not interest them, and they did not know the answer.

• 2 Complexity based sourcing practices

In the sourcing process, learners evaluate information content to balance its utility and trustworthiness. A recurrent theme throughout the interviews was that of seeking religious information given the time constraints and the level of complexity or importance of the area of inquiry. Religious law requires a constant flow of information to meet contingent situations. To address this challenge in a minimum amount of time, the interviewees discussed new media’s utility in providing viable responses. Thus, given the time constraints, and a non-polarizing issue, the interviewees were more lenient in terms of the authority and quality of response.

For example, one interviewee said:

If right now I just need some simple question answered, and it is likely that the disagreements on that topic aren’t very fundamental, in that case it is less critical [to discern which Rabbi answered the question]

This interviewee lumped ‘simple’ and ‘non-fundamental’ questions together as questions that would not require a specific Rabbi to answer. Of course, all this is still within the framework of Rabbinic Orthodox Judaism. This type of compromise is applied primarily to information that is widely accepted in the community such as the basic laws of Kashrut and the Sabbath.

Many interviewees said that some questions need to be answered quickly. When needing an answer while cooking, one interviewee referred to lack of time as a factor in the quality of the response they will accept:

In a certain sense, I would call this situation (needing religious information while cooking) a Shaat Hadchak (moment of urgency). I am not going to open a book and study this, I am in the middle of cooking and need to know what to do.

Shaat Hadchak is a religious term referring to a moment of urgency in which it is difficult to abide by Jewish law, including cases of utmost urgency or transgressions regarding the practice of cross-denominational Jewish law. In these situations, the act of researching itself may have been more important to the participants than the information they found. As the search itself was viewed as shifting the transgressive burden from the learner to the religious source (the online rabbi), they have ‘someone to rely on’.

• 3 Authority tailoring: fitting sources to queries

Alongside the network of religious authorities and selecting authorities to match appropriate queries, the interviewees highlighted the ways in which they determined when and to what extent an answer was reliable.

When asked ‘What is the difference between asking a Rabbi and researching yourself’, one interviewee said:

I can be more certain of the answer when I asked a Rabbi, however regarding Tevilah (a question he researched himself because the Rabbi was not available), that is an area of inquiry that I feel I can grasp myself and rely on my findings.

The threshold of certainty is higher when the information is directly received from a religious authority, according to this interviewee. However, for the question at hand, that level of certainty was unnecessary. Another interviewee expressed a different attitude toward asking directly versus researching privately:

I: When I ask a Rabbi, I don’t feel like I really get the answer to my question, rather I feel like I know what to do (how to act in accordance with Halacha)

Researcher: And when do you feel you want to know the answer and not just how to act?

I: Cases that are more individualistic and are dependent on individual factors that differ from person to person, so it’s hard to say there is one categorical answer for everyone in that boat. With an onion (the question he was researching) that is easier because it isn’t dependent on personal circumstances.

This interviewee started off by expressing that he does not feel he knows enough about his question when the answer is given directly from a religious authority, and he states that he ‘knows the answer’ when he does the research himself. Moreover, he feels more confident in an answer he researched by himself than for questions that have more ‘individualistic factors’ associated with them.

Both the interviewee who expressed more confidence when getting the answer directly from a Rabbi, and the interviewee who stated he scrutinized the issue more deeply when he did the research, were both engaged in deciding what constituted the most appropriate approach to a particular question, and what level of epistemic certainty they hope to achieve given the circumstances to be satisfied with the response The process of evaluating the properties of an acceptable answer to a question were laid out as a distinct process in another interview:

If there is something that I think is a simple question, I will search online and verify that it is as simple as I think it is. If it isn’t, I will ask my friend (in a rabbinic seminary), and if it is simple I will go with what I find … If I see [an answer on a website] saying something like “people tend to be more stringent on this matter” - who is “people”? What is “stringent”? Once I see things like that I know it’s a harder question that will require consultation

This interviewee describes assessing the difficulty of a question as a preliminary process before finding the answer, which in turn affects the type of answer that will be accepted.

Aside from defining a threshold of reliability, the interviewees expressed preferences for certain experiential elements of the learning process. Specifically, many interviewees mentioned that given the time limitations, they would rather research a question themselves than rely on others, not necessarily because they distrusted others’ responses, but specifically because they saw value in the search itself. When asked if there was a difference between a question asked online and a question that someone researched themselves, one interviewee gave an analogy:

There is an enormous difference [between asking a question online and researching it yourself], it’s like asking what is the difference between if I change my child’s diaper, or if I pay someone to do it. It’s a huge difference, I will connect more with my child, I will know the child better, I will know what he likes and what he doesn’t like, how to approach the child and how not to … 

This participant expressed a preference for self-education over a direct answer from an external authority regardless of its level of certainty. The rationale was that personal investment is inherently rewarding. The sentiment articulated here was prevalent in many interviews, suggesting that an integral part of the religious learning process is directed not only at the result but rather, and perhaps primarily, the process.

• 4 Self-reliance and obedience

As aforementioned, believers select questions and receive information on a spectrum ranging from self-reliance to obedience. There is an adage in Jewish law ‘Aseh Lecha Rav vehistalech min hasafek’ which roughly translates as ‘make yourself a rabbi, and have no doubts’. This statement has been interpreted in different ways over time, but the underlying message is that religious authority is defined by the individual, rather than collectively preordained. Examining believers’ religious autonomy, at the end of every interview, the interviewees were asked to state how they interpreted the adage ‘make yourself a rabbi’. The interviewees consistently answered that they did not feel this statement confined them to a single religious authority, but rather interpreted it in a way that maintained their religious autonomy:

I understand that statement to mean that you need to be consistent in how you decide where to ask a question. If there is a rabbi who is lenient in one area but strict in another, and another rabbi who is the opposite, you should not just go to each for their lenient ruling, you should be consistent … Of course, do what you believe and what you feel comfortable with, but don't look for shortcuts, you can always find a rabbi who will allow something.

For this interviewee the statement calls on people to engage in intellectual integrity by sourcing a rabbi or ruling in a consistent manner.

Make yourself a rabbi, as we were taught, means that in every area of life you should have someone to consult. It doesn’t matter what that area is, could be religious and could be secular. You are part of the dilemma so you are biased, so you need someone else to help you look at the situation objectively and give you a suggestion. This does not need to be an expert, just someone you trust.

In this quote, the statement addresses the problem of intellectual bias, and in explaining the role of a religious authority, the participant describes them as consultants who offer suggestions rather than authorities who are all-knowing.

On a basic level, if you want to grow in spirituality and even in practice … find yourself a person or several people that you trust and whose approach you agree with and conduct yourself accordingly. If you need to know something specific I don’t think it’s so important to ask “your” rabbi, but even on those things you should be consistent and not just look for a convenient leniency. I'm saying, be consistent in your approach, don’t just go with what is most comfortable.

While this participant underscored the utility of approaching multiple Rabbis to lead a pious life, another interviewee specified that the internet plays a role by promoting an easy selection of rabbis and a variety of answers:

One of the issues with the internet is that you can do whatever you want and ask whomever you want … I, for example, will ask a question on halacha yomit which is the marans (Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef) website. I can’t say “this is my rabbi” there are many things they forbid that I don’t live by. What “make yourself a rabbi” means is don’t look for leniency.

This participant states that consistency is a guiding principle in her search for online information. Not necessarily a consistency with the general views of the rabbis whose advice she seeks, as she may not live in accordance with many of their other rulings, rather a consistency to which she holds herself accountable to.

While many religious circles and traditional commentaries on the statement ‘Aseh lecha Rav’ interpret it as an obligation to accept a single authority, the interpretation by the RZ participants here took a different approach. Some interpreted it to mean that one should be consistent when choosing a religious authority. Others interpreted it to mean that people should have many authorities they can trust. The underlying suggestion was that the individual has the freedom to choose a religious authority, albeit with a moral duty to stay consistent and as unbiased as possible.

* * *

Overall findings revealed extensive use of new media to research questions for personal religious praxis. The participants were critical of answers they found online, focusing on the authors of the content, the sources they cited and the certainty conveyed by the rabbi to decide whether it was reliable or not. In this process, the participants made distinctions between questions they found appropriate for online inquiry. They also selected the appropriate source for a question based on factors such as the complexity of the question or its level of polarization, the prestige, social affiliation and expertise of the source, and finally examined situational considerations, such as time constraints. The participants expressed an inclination towards researching religious questions themselves, both to gain a sense of certainty in the answer and because they valued the learning process. Thus, data points to the participants’ constant pursuit of avenues to attain knowledge, while touching on the religious nature and value of the process.

Discussion

This study focused on how religious authority is understood and negotiated by learners, and in turn, how they evaluate authoritative sources with respect to their own opinions and worldviews. This was achieved by exploring the ways that RZ engage in online learning for their everyday use. A think-aloud research design, and interviews with RZ participants pointed to the epistemic process they exercised when researching religious questions online.

Rather than assuming religious autonomy by virtue of learners’ access to new media, the study aimed to uncover learners’ internalized relation to authority. Thus, the research design explored the meta-cognitive practice of learners. Following this design, findings indicated that the task lay learners face when searching online for an answer to a religious question is based on an a priori consideration. Religious learners consider if their query is suitable for external inquiry from a rabbi, or if, based on a narrow set of moral boundaries that frame the question, it is legitimate to autonomously select an answer from information available to them without guidance. Moreover, participants indicated that the type of question they can ask, and the manner in which they will ask it, are informed by social and situational conditions, as well as the individualistic motivations driving the question.

The interviewees described knowing when they were not able to answer a question autonomously through personal inquiry and required assistance of others. This process requires a reflective and metacognitive self-critique, to identify what is epistemically achievable (Barzilai and Chinn 2018) as well as what is epistemically legitimate. Metacognition, the process of thinking about how one thinks, allows individuals to challenge preconceived notions and whether the knowledge and epistemic tools at their disposal can be relied on. In tandem, metacognitive reflection fosters a consideration of epistemic limitations driven by the scope of the learner's knowledge and social boundaries.

The interviewees discussed the ways they decide to rely on their personal inquiry or on others. Many of the interviewees had studied for several years in a religious institution of higher learning, which is typical of men in the RZ community. Despite their high levels of religious literacy, the interviewees discussed the limits of their knowledge and what they felt was appropriate for them to research themselves. While they mostly underscored their ability to identify whether a question was rudimentary/complex or agreed upon/disputed, they questioned their ability to reach a satisfactory religious interpretation and sought external advice. Online sites were viewed as legitimate platforms for obtaining religious information given their digital affordances in terms of maintaining (or controlling levels of) anonymity and receiving prompt responses. Questions that were disputed, complex or ‘fundamental’ to the identity of the inquirer were less likely to be researched autonomously and instead the learner would depend on a religious authority. If the reason the learner opted for the heteronomous route was due to the complexity of the question, the authority was selected based on the authority’s perceived expertise in that area of religious law, or alternatively, based on the personal connection the inquirer had with the authority (depending on their benevolence as we will explain). If the reason to adhere to an external authority was due to the nature of the question and the social norms and affiliations that govern a particular type of knowledge, an authority was selected based on the social affiliation and status of the authority.

Accordingly, the study sheds light on questions of autonomous worship and religious individualism in the digital age. Whereas communal and Orthodox dogma often dictate the boundaries of legitimate religious authority, contemporary online learning employs sourcing practices and self-selection of religious texts and clerics. This is suggestive of a more individual learning process. As indicated in the findings (‘autonomy and self-regulation’), the case of lay RZ learners is illustrative of a dual process of individualization (or a facet of networked individualization, in Wellman and Rainie’s terms). On the one hand, users are more autonomous as they develop their networks and select repositories of knowledge on their own, rather than relying on an external source or social context (e.g., religious seminary, workplace or school), while on the other hand, users at times will forfeit this autonomy in favor of heteronomous information routes when socially or epistemically required.

The lay RZ participants here had considerable religious literacy and were able to self-regulate their knowledge and reliance on external sources of authority. Further research could explore the epistemic authority construction of more centralized religious groups, such as Catholic believers or the Amish-Mennonite community.

Nevertheless, despite the inclination towards autonomous religious thinking and the application of individually-driven epistemic processes in faith-based decisions, traditional forms of authority and primordial affiliation continue to play an important role in these processes as they are internalized into the social schemes described by the RZ participants here (Zerubavel 1999).

Community based authority

The findings pointed to a preference for a religious authority based on community and social ties. The participants sought out sources with whom they shared a social or ethnic affiliation. At times the participants would select one affiliation over another. For example, the RZ participants opted to receive information from Rabbinical authorities of the same ethnicity, even if they shifted to an authority from a different religious variant.

In Orthodox Judaism a Jew may subscribe to a tradition or practices they have taken on themselves, practices that have been passed down in their family, or a practice that is binding by association with an ethnic or social group. For example, Ashkenazi Jews eat milk and fish together while Sephardic Jews prohibit this practice. This religious distinction is commonly known by Ashkenazi rabbis just as it is known to Sephardic Rabbis. Empirically there is no difference in the answer one would get from an Ashkenazi or Sephardic rabbi if they asked the question ‘Can a Sefardi eat milk and fish together?’ However, the Sephardic interviewees deliberately mentioned that they would seek out Sephardic Rabbis for their religious questions and would refrain from trusting the response of an authority from a different ethnic group.

The preference for an Ashkenazi or Sephardic rabbi was only mentioned by Sephardic interviewees. Seeking out a Sephardic Rabbi was important enough for one interviewee that he mentioned going to a website associated with the ultra-Orthodox community, which is distinct from the RZ stream he is part of, in favor of a Sephardic Rabbi. One possible explanation for this choice is that as a minority in the RZ community, there may be a normative assumption that the ‘default’ RZ Rabbi will be Ashkenazi, so Ashkenazi interviewees did not mention looking specifically for a Ashkenazi rabbi.

The preference for Sephardic rabbis among community members may be attributed to Benevolence. This refers to the trust that individuals have in a source to provide accurate information regardless of their expertise. Benevolent trust is often extended to kinship, close acquaintances (Corriveau et al. 2009; Corriveau and Harris 2009; Clément 2016) and to people within the same primordial association (Chen, Corriveau, and Harris 2013). Therefore, it is likely that Sephardic learners trust Ashkenazi rabbis in terms of their knowledge and expertise, but prefer to seek guidance from a personalized source that is identifiable and holds higher trustworthiness within their own community.

This form of trust was implicitly present throughout the entire research, while some interviewees spoke about asking rabbis who were not directly associated to the RZ community, they only ventured to rabbis who subscribed to an Orthodox interpretation of Judaism, such as ultra-Orthodox clerics, but would not suggest relying on rabbis from Reform or Conservative strands regardless of their expertise.

Clergy, believers and self-reliance in religious learning

When asking a religious question, the participants here cited multiple goals, not only the epistemic goal of identifying a reliable answer, or the goal of asking a rabbi with a shared background, but also mentioned their interest in engaging in a religious experience in itself by virtue of asking the question.

Many interviewees voiced their preference to have the learning experience of researching a religious question, rather than asking a rabbi. One interviewee compared asking a rabbi for an answer to paying someone else to take over parenting duties. Accordingly, for these believers, learning is seen as an objective in itself and part of their religious journey. As everyday life evokes religious queries, the quest to resolve these questions drives them to draw on tools honed through schooling. This in turn both empowers them and leads to performing the religious work of online research to find the ‘correct’ solution and ultimately develop a spiritual connection to the divine through information seeking. Fostering self-reliance strategies ultimately impacts the perception of clerical figures in regional communities, including that of the RZ.

The role of the cleric has undergone a shift in the face of the rise of information and communication technologies (ICTs). According to our metacognitive analysis, clerical authority has fragmented, from a sage and leader in all areas of everyday life and a primary disseminator of knowledge, to multiple clerics specializing in specific and narrow aspects of believers’ daily practice. This fragmentation may be a result of believers attaining increased autonomy in their choice of religious guidance, potentially free from geographic or communal constraints, which in turn manifests in their epistemic practices. However, primordial and institutionally based leadership (aka traditional leadership) still plays a significant role in addressing the ‘big questions’, while ‘smaller questions’ of daily practicalities are often left to online sources. This suggests that religious autonomy is still limited for believers when it comes to their most pressing questions. Nevertheless, the proliferation of, and access to, online clerics may lead to incremental changes in the agency and autonomy of religious learners.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback. In addition, deep gratitude is offered to Professor Ayelet Baram-Tsabari for her continued guidance and support of this research project. Finally, the authors wish to express their appreciation to Aref Badarne for his careful editorial contribution and astute comments.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 See Knesset report on RZ education (2012) https://fs.knesset.gov.il/globaldocs/MMM/15556b58-e9f7-e411-80c8-00155d010977/2_15556b58-e9f7-e411-80c8-00155d010977_11_6959.pdf.

Appendix

Example questions

The following are some of the questions subjects reported recently researching online:

1. Can a Sefardi person eat meat during the 9 days (days when jews mourn the loss of the temple and don't eat meat)?

2. Can one pray the afternoon prayer after sundown?

3. Why are we obligated to wear tzitzit?

4. What is the minimal amount of wine required for kiddush on the Sabbath?