The classification and framing of religious dialogues in two English schools

Abstract

This article explores the place of discourse about religions in education by comparing two very different schools. It initially outlines some of the current debates around religious discourse, notably in dialogue. A theoretical frame for analysing religious discourse in schools is proposed, combining a theorisation of three levels of dialogue with both notions of classification and framing, and a distinction between the formal curriculum and the institutional curriculum. Research in 'Flintmead' and 'Headley' is then described: the former an elite Anglican private boarding school, the latter a secular non-selective state day school. The analysis shows how the schools build complex structures across the different dialogical levels, between and within the formal and institutional curriculum, with varying strengths of classification and framing. In particular, similar approaches to religious education sit alongside different discursive structures. The implications of the study for further comparison are discussed, and for understandings of religious dialogue.

Meaning-making in religious education: a critical discourse analysis of RE departments’ web pages

“…Firstly, in relation to 'stake and interest', similar to the outcomes of other studies (Fancourt 2016;Matemba 2015), the findings show that significant differences can exist in how RE is constructed within one region in the UK and also across different school types in the same region. Not only does this show the extent of the freedom and power that schools and even individual RE professionals have in constructing aims in religious education but the critical discourse analysis also draws particular attention to the fact that these differences go down to foundational epistemological levels.…”

“…In her investigations of RE in different school-types in England, Ipgrave (2012) emphasises the significance of institutional ethos as well as the values and attitudes of teachers in relation to meanings given to RE -especially their attitudes to religion. Similarly, the work of Fancourt (2016), Matemba (2015) and underline the significance of contextual issues in how religious education is constructed in England, Scotland and other European regions.…”

Schools and their local religious contexts: building a framework of negotiations through qualitative meta-synthesis

“…The dyads are not just conceptual hooks but, in keeping with the inductive character of our analytical model, reflect the processes taking place in the contexts researched. This explains why some studies that previously emerged from this research can be situated in one or more dyads: school ethos and different approaches to Muslim religion of pupils (Ipgrave 2017c;Ipgrave, Miller, and Hopkins 2010), Jewish school ethos and curricular approaches to other faiths (Ipgrave 2016), or school ethos and curriculum (Fancourt 2016).…”

“…2 We were engaged in the qualitative research element in one or more of these projects and have then drawn on this research to explore or develop new theoretical perspectives. We jointly led the case studies section of the Materials project (Jackson et al 2010a, 121-175), and Fancourt commented on questions of dialogue and pedagogy for both the REDCo project and the Materials project (Fancourt 2009(Fancourt , 2016. Ipgrave has been involved in and drawn on all three projects (Ipgrave 2010(Ipgrave , 2011(Ipgrave , 2012a(Ipgrave , 2012bIpgrave, Miller, and Hopkins 2010;Ipgrave 2013Ipgrave , 2016Ipgrave , 2017aIpgrave , 2017bIpgrave , 2017cIpgrave , 2017d; Arweck and Ipgrave 2017).…”

A critical view of family and religious studies in the context of religious abuse and extremism in Zimbabwe

“…Framing refers to the degree of control that the teacher and pupil possess over the 'selection, organization, pacing and timing of the knowledge transmitted and received in the pedagogical relationship' (Bernstein 1973:88). Thus, a weak frame allows students and teachers to move in and out of the content without limitations, which may affect organisation, pacing and timing of religious lessons, given that teachers are different (Fancourt 2016;Stern 2007). For example, when teachers and learners discuss the concept of Trinity, there is a likelihood that they would disagree because the concept has no definite answer, but it is influenced by one theological and cultural orientation; hence, it suffers weak framing.…”