This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 17 May 2012, At: 10:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mental Health, Religion & CulturePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmhr20

The case for narrativeKate M. Loewenthal aa Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London,Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK and New York University in London,6, Bedford Square, London WC1B 3RA, London, UK

Available online: 13 May 2010

To cite this article: Kate M. Loewenthal (2010): The case for narrative, Mental Health, Religion &Culture, 13:4, 391-395

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674670903415311

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Mental Health, Religion & CultureVol. 13, No. 4, May 2010, 391395

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The case for narrative

Kate M. Loewenthal*

Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX,UK and New York University in London, 6, Bedford Square, London WC1B 3RA, London, UK

(Received 1 September 2009; final version received 6 September 2009)

This commentary highlights some of the key features of Belzens book, notablyhis suggestions about the nature of the cultural psychology of religion, and theimplications of this for methodology. Although there are a number of interestingand sometimes controversial views in the book, this commentary will focusparticularly on Belzens emphasis on the importance of the study of narrative.

Keywords: culture; psychology of religion; methodology; qualitative; narrative

Belzens (2010) book is a compilation of several years of work, advancing the case for acultural psychology of religion, in which a hermeneutical (generally qualitative)methodological approach is taken. This approach enables explanation and interpretationat a different level than allowed by the positivist-influenced individual-differences,quantitative approach. The shift encouraged by Belzen is a reflection of post-modernism,in that it enables different viewpoints to be adopted.

There are indeed signs that a wider range of theoretical approaches and methodologiesare beginning to be used (Loewenthal, 2009). Belzen offers a welcome articulation of viewsthat support this widening range of methodologies, providing a rationale and a range offascinating examples.

There are two strands to Belzens argument. The first strand of argument is for awidening of methodologies, and the second strand is that this widening of methodology isessential to enable a shift from the study of the individual, to a study of culture and itselements.

Belzen has distinguished cultural psychology from cross-cultural psychology, arguingfor the integration of cultural psychology into the psychology of religion. Cross-culturalpsychology has traditionally employed a dimensional, quantitative approach to theassessment of human functioning, and has focussed its study on individuals and individualpsychic processes, comparing differences between groups of individuals from differentcultures. Invoking Wundts concept of Volkerpsychologie, Belzen suggests that by contrastcultural psychology focuses on elements of culture such as customs, religion, language which are the products of culture, that is, the coordinated action of a plurality ofindividuals. While some topics of study can involve the study of individuals, a non-reductionist conceptual framework is used, to enable contextualised understanding ofbehaviours, thoughts and feelings in different cultures and at different periods. This may

*Email: c.loewenthal@rhul.ac.uk

ISSN 13674676 print/ISSN 14699737 online

2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13674670903415311

http://www.informaworld.com

involve quantitative methodologies, but typically involves a rich range of methodologiesand sources, such as participant observation, the study of texts, art, discourse, archive andarcheological material.

The final section of the book offers examples of the approach advocated by Belzen,and I will summarise one example to give a flavour of the approach.

Belzen offers a detailed narrative and commentary, drawn from multiple sources, of acase of manslaughter in the Netherlands, just over a century ago. In a religious gathering, afarmer killed his farmhand, asserting that the farmhand was possessed by the devil.The corpse was badly mutilated by others in the gathering, who then proclaimed that thefarmer was the Messiah. The farmer was arrested, and when brought to trial, the Dutchauthorities accepted the medical view that the farmer and accomplices were insane.The killing was not seen by the authorities as a divine work, or the result of heresy, nor wasit criminal.

Belzen points out how difficult it is to judge the borderlines. Why were the local pastorand policeman not more perturbed by the evidence of serious disturbance and ofbloodshed, for example? Belzen indicates that these and other questions cannot be readilyresolved, and that the purpose of his account is to point to the significance of narrativefor psychological analysis.

So what can hermeneutic analysis offer to the cultural psychology of religion thatcannot be offered by other methodologies?

In pursuit of an answer, I examined another recent hermeneutic analysis, to assistdetection of the significant features of this approach: Cook, Sandage, Hill, and Strawn(2009): Hermeneutic analysis of virtuous exemplar narratives of Cambodian-AmericanBuddhists and Christians. The authors of this paper say that Ricoeurs (1981)hermeneutic philosophy is conducive to the study of narrative meaning, allowing themore distanciated methods of quantitative research to complement more personal,subjective qualitative methods. This enables confirmation of interpretive inferences.

In their study, Cook et al. (2009) asked for virtuous exemplars to be identified byreligious leaders, and studied their accounts of virtue. Methodology was based ongrounded theory, and used thematic coding and latent semantic analysis. Rigour wasenhanced using triangulation, collaboration, member checking and researcher reflexivity.The Buddhists accounts of virtue, as embodied in the selected exemplars, focussed onperseverance in the present life and gaining merit in the next. The Christians focussed onserving God and nurturing relationships in this life.

So what is offered by hermeneutic analysis to the cultural psychology of religion?Hermeneutics is based on traditional biblical exegesis, and is also more broadly under-stood as the interpretive, explanatory treatment of text, discourse or other material. It isdifficult, and perhaps pointless, to identify the border between hermeneutic analysis andqualitative analysis in general. Perhaps we should not be concerned about any suchdistinction. In any case, the important feature of the cultural psychology of religion isperhaps not (solely) the methodology, but the focus, which is to be on the elements ofculture. But still, if the study of narrative and narrative meaning is important, as it is saidto be in both the examples described above, do we need the conceptual apparatus ofhermeneutics to get the most from it? Clearly, the study of narrative has already been usedto good effect in the psychology of religion, for example by Day (1993) in examining therole played by narrative discourse in individual belief.

It is certainly doubtful that the introduction of hermeneutic concepts to the (cultural)psychology of religion will result in the introduction or development of new, hithertounheard-of methods of analysis. But a likely and valuable development will be an

392 K.M. Loewenthal

expansion of the extent to which non-quantitative methods are used and applied.This would be welcome for several reasons. First, my experience of mixed-methodsresearch suggests that the study of narrative does not simply enable confirmation ofinterpretive inferences (Cook et al., 2009). Mixed methodology often generates apparentconflicts, whose resolution enables a deeper understanding of the issues under study.Second, there is a concern that qualitative methods are declining in popularity, and effortsare needed to revive interest in their use. The grounds for suspecting that qualitativemethodology needs renewed enthusiasm are several. For instance, Loewenthal and Lewis(2009) noted that in the first nine years of publication of the journal Mental Health,Religion and Culture, from 1998 to 2006, qualitative and quantitative papers wereapproximately equally represented. In the ensuing three years, 20072009, there was a risein the proportion of quantitative papers (see Figure 1).

This was not apparently due to a higher acceptance rate for quantitative papers, but areflection of a higher proportion of quantitative papers submitted. Further, coal-facerumours among academic psychologists suggest that journals are not welcomingqualitative work to the extent that it was being welcomed in the first flush of enthusiasmin the 1990s. There are ominous reports of authors experiencing rejections of quali-tative research, based on reviews which reveal startling ignorance of qualitativemethodologies, and which often appear based on a fuzzy and dated form of positivism.Further, Loewenthal and Lewis reported that nine of the 10 most highly cited papersin Mental Health, Religion and Culture were based on quantitative research, eventhough the majority of these papers were from the first three years of the journalsproduction when there were equal proportions of quantitative and other papers beingpublished. From this journal, non-quantitative work was simply not among the mostfrequently cited.

This evidence is limited and rather fragmentary, but as far as it goes, suggests thatqualitative methodologies may be struggling to gain acceptance in scientific, social-scientific and medical/psychiatric academic research and publication. So Belzens urgingswill play an important and needed role for those who are concerned about this situation.

In supporting Belzens general position on qualitative methodologies, awareness oftheir shortcomings is needed. One concern is often addressed in discussions of qualitativemethodology, namely the issue of sampling and representativeness. Qualitative researchers

010

2030

4050

6070

80

1998-2000 2001-2003 2004-2006 2007-2009

Quantitative

Other

Figure 1. Changes in methodology? Averages over 3-year periods of quantitative and other papersin Mental Health, Religion and Culture (Other qualitative, review, case, theoretical).

Mental Health, Religion & Culture 393

are rightly advised that their samples are too small to enable representation of the extent towhich beliefs and other factors studied are present in members of the group under study.The purposive sampling normally employed in qualitative research enables theachievement of conceptual saturation with relatively small sample sizes. This enablesthe researcher/s to identify beliefs and other factors including elements of culture in thegroup/s under study, enabling understanding of experience and phenomenology, but notallowing estimates of the frequency of particular categories of experience.

However, there is a complication. It is sometimes apparent from the description of thecharacteristics of a sample that the sample is unlikely to be representative of the groupfrom which it was drawn. For instance, it may be biased with respect to age or gender.Comment then does become necessary. It is possible that the qualitative research has notcaptured the full range of experience within the group. There is an obligation to commenton sample bias and the implications this may have had on the findings. Qualitativeresearchers are therefore not free to disregard the issue of sample representativeness.They cannot assume they are exempt by simply asserting that their findings apply only tothe group studied.

A further complication is the tendency to generalise about the applicability ofunderstanding gained from one group or from one period of time. As I understand Belzen,this would be completely mistaken. The findings of cultural psychology, including thecultural psychology of religion, are specific to the group and period of study. So forexample, the understanding of a nineteenth-century Calvinist group in England could notbe applied to or compared with understandings of a twentieth-century Calvinist group inHolland.

Another concern relates to the use of multiple perspectives. We need to start drawingtogether what is being learnt about the pros and cons of using multiple perspectives.Belzen has made a reasonable and pragmatic suggestion that multiple perspectives shouldbe taken into account in the cultural psychology of religion, enabling deeper under-standing. This is an important advantage but there are grounds for caution. Belzenappears to favour the transcendence of disciplinary boundaries. However, there is a dangerthat this may lead to amateurish dabbling. If I (a psychologist) wish to study medievalaccounts of religious ecstasy in a particular religious group, I do not have the expertise toevaluate the reliability of sources, or the linguistic competence to evaluate the availabletranslations. Much interesting work could be marred by failure to appreciate thatdisciplinary boundaries cannot simply be transcended by acts of will and enthusiasm boundaries need to be respected in so far as the expertise on the other side of the boundaryneeds to drawn upon.

One final and nostalgic comment on Belzens book. Belzen inspired me to think againabout the importance of Sundens (1959/1966) role theory, and in particular Sundensemphasis on the importance of biblical narratives in social-spiritual development.Particularly interesting in the light of Belzens work is the question of the culturalcarriage of the choice of narratives. Which virtuous exemplars are singled out by whichfaiths at which times? Which are the virtues singled out for emulation, why and how? It ismany years since my teaching and research touched on Sunden, and I was excited by thepossibilities for revisiting inherent in Belzens thinking.

In conclusion, Belzens book involves an important emphasis on culture and itselements, as a focus of study for psychologists of religion. If Belzens advocacy has thedesired impact, qualitative methods will be used more extensively, and may draw on awider range of sources. With appropriate caution, this will make the psychology of religiona very interesting place both to work in and to visit.

394 K.M. Loewenthal

References

Belzen, J.A. (2010). Towards a cultural psychology of religion: principles, approaches, and applications.New York: Springer.

Cook, K.V., Sandage, S.J., Hill, P.C., & Strawn, B.D. (2009). Hermeneutic analysis of virtuousexemplar narratives of Cambodian-American Buddhists and Christians.Mental Health, Religionand Culture, 12, 315338.

Day, J.M. (1993). Speaking of belief: Language, performance and narrative in the psychology ofreligion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 213229.

Loewenthal, K.M. (2009). Psychology of religion. In P. Clarke, & P. Beyer (Eds.), Encyclopedia ofworld religions (pp. 867889). London: Routledge.

Loewenthal, K.M., & Lewis, C.A. (2009). Mental Health, Religion and Culture: Review andreflections. Paper presented at the International Association for the Psychology of ReligionCongress in Vienna, 2327 August 2009.

Ricoeur, R. (1981). Hermeneutics in the human sciences. (J.B. Thompson, Ed., Trans.). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Sunden, H. (1959/1966). Die religion und die rollen: Eine psychologische untersuchung (Religion and

role theory: A psychological investigation). Berlin: Topelman.

Mental Health, Religion & Culture 395