Researching rituals: on the use of participatory action research
in liturgical studies
Dr Cas Wepener
Buvton, Faculty of Theology
Stellenbosch University
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------Abstrak
Daar is ‘n oplewing in navorsing oor die liturgie. Verskeie faktore het aanleiding gegee tot
‘n hernude belangstelling in die liturgie enersyds, en andersyds ‘n opbloei in liturgiese
navorsing. In ooreenstemming met hierdie oplewing bestaan die behoefte aan
navorsingsmetodologie binne die veld van die Liturgiek. Die oogmerk van hierdie artikel
is om kwalitatiewe navorsingsmetodologie te verken, deelnemendeaksie-navorsing in die
besonder. Die bedoeling van hierdie artikel is om slegs ‘n voorlopige verkenning te maak
van hoe hierdie navorsingsmetodologie spesifiek aangepas kan word vir gebruik in
liturgiese navorsing. Met die oog hierop word verskeie benaderings binne die veld van
die Liturgiek eerstens verken. Vervolgens word enkele ontwikkelinge in die area van
liturgiese navorsing op die tafel geplaas, ten einde die kompleksiteit van die
ondersoeksobjek waarop navorsing stuit en wat deur die navorsingsmetodologie
verreken moet word, te belig. Vanuit hierdie gegewens word daar uiteindelik enkele
praktiese voorstelle aangaande die gebruik van deelnemendeaksie-navorsing in
liturgiese ondersoeke gemaak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
1. INTRODUCTION1
There is currently a great interest in the liturgy and accordingly also in liturgical
research. Many reasons can be given for this state of affairs, inter alia the work
done by the Liturgical Movement, ecumenical work on the subject, as well as the
discovery of the formative power of the liturgy in the life of congregations and
individuals (identity, ethics, etc). In line with this renewed interest, a whole surge
of liturgical research is currently being undertaken, also in (South) Africa. If a
study does not explicitly take the liturgy as its point of departure, then the liturgy
often features in the conclusion. The aim of this article is to explore qualitative
research methodology, specifically participatory action research (PAR). The
contribution of this article is to demonstrate, in particular, that this research
methodology can be adopted for use within the field of liturgical inquiries.
According to Post (2001a:18), a big challenge to the discipline of Liturgy today
lies in the terrain of theory and method. With this aim of exploring the
applicability of PAR methodology in mind, one relatively new approach to the
field of liturgy will firstly be investigated. After that some new developments within
the domain of liturgical research will be considered. This will help to highlight the
complexities a researcher faces when engaging scientifically with this object of
research. All these complexities must be taken into account when the liturgy is
being studied in an integral manner. Finally some practical suggestions regarding
liturgical research methodology will be made. As a whole this article is a very
preliminary attempt at an exploration of these methodological considerations.
1
Ammerman (1998:16) cites Browning who says that, if we believe that God is
actively working in the world, and is not only a afterthought to explain what is
happening in the world, then the description of what is happening in the world is
a theological task. The use of a research method such as PAR within the field of
theology/liturgy is thus not a process preceding the actual theologising, but an
integral part of the whole process of theologising. Therefore it is imperative to
rethink our research methodologies every so often as part of the task of being
(practical) theologians.
2. APPROACHES WITHIN THE FIELD OF LITURGY
There are numerous methodological points of departure in research within the
domain of the liturgy2, but the final choice of a certain approach will depend upon
what the researcher sees as the object of inquiry. If the liturgy is understood as a
complex web of Christian rituals and symbols, and rituals and symbols are seen
as the building blocks of the liturgy, then approaches from disciplines with similar
interests (also taking symbols and rituals as objects of research) might be of
value. Various liturgists hold this view nowadays, namely that the study of liturgy
is the study of Christian rituals and symbols (see Barnard 2000), and accordingly
the heuristics of disciplines such as Ethnography and Cultural Anthropology are
used in research. This is also the line that this article chooses to pursue, and as
such views rituals as the object of research and the so-called liturgia condenda
or "liturgy in the making" as the aim. With this in mind a research methodology is
needed which can document the rituals as well as the ways in which the rituals
are appropriated by the participants. This information can then be used within a
larger liturgical research design, for example, the design developed by Post
called “Interferention and intuition” (Post 2001; Wepener 2004:34-37). The aim of
this article is not, however, to present such a research design, but only a
preliminary exploration of the research methodology by which rituals as objects
for research can be documented. Such an endeavour, that is the documentation
of rituals, is a rather complex and painstaking exercise.
3. THE COMPLEXITY OF THE RESEARCH OBJECT
Although there is currently a movement away from fixed definitions for
phenomena such as rituals in favour of a tendency rather to just designate a
cluster of qualities3, a preliminary definition of '‘ritual’' will be given here. Such a
definition is helpful in order to clarify what is meant by ritual in this context, and
thereby also what exactly must be documented during the field work, so that this
specific phenomenon can be studied.
The definition adopted for this article is: “Rituals are often repeated, self-evident,
symbolic actions, that are always interactive and corporeal, sometimes
accompanied by texts and formulas, aimed at the transfer of values in the
individual or the group, and of which the form and content are always culture,
2
context and time bound, so that the involvement in the reality which is presented
in the ritual remains a dynamic given” (Wepener 2004:74). With this definition in
mind, some remarks regarding the object of research can be made.
First the whole enacted ritual must be described. In the past liturgical research
often meant an in-depth study of a book, for example, the Roman missal or
Handboek vir die erediens. Today, especially for liturgists who choose a ritualliturgical or anthropological approach, not only the words but also the whole ritual
must be studied, and therefore firstly documented. Such documentation will
therefore include words, deeds and every single piece of information that will add
to clarifying the meaning of the ritual. Here the whole sensory interplay is of great
importance, and therefore a researcher must take into account everything he or
she sees, hears, smells, feels or tastes during the performance (see, among
others, Lukken 1989 and Lukken 1999:135-138). According to Post (2001b), this
will entail examining the enacted ritual within the matrix of, among other things,
both primary and secondary sources; cult and culture; continuity and change;
appropriation and designation – in other words, the whole enacted ritual within its
multiple contexts must be documented and studied in an integral way. With
regards to the study of ritual Stringer states, “The first thing that any
anthropologist will be interested in is a detailed study of what actually happens
during the rite itself”, and later, “…this has now become common, almost
obligatory, to start any analysis of a rite with a very detailed account of what
actually happens” (Stringer 1989:511-512). This detailed account is thus the
starting point of the research and entails that the researcher will go to where the
action is performed, participate in it, observing it and documenting it, in order to
reveal also the not so obvious.
In addition to such a description of the enacted rituals, the various ways of
appropriation of these rituals by the participants must also be collected.
Traditionally ecclesial authorities formulated the rituals or the liturgy of churches,
which was then usually collected in one authoritative book, for example The book
of common prayer, the Missal or the Handboek vir die erediens. These liturgical
(re)sources are very valuable and the emphasis which is placed upon the right
doctrine must be applauded. The rituals as prescribed in these books can
nonetheless sometimes become separated from the people who enact these
rituals. Therefore the way in which the participants appropriate what they do is a
very important source for the study of rituals. There must be some kind of
correlation between what participants want (appropriation) and what authorities
think they should do (designation).
Such an approach in which the anthropological dimension is taken seriously
often elicits some theological criticism. The fear of consumerism, just giving
people what they want and like, instead of only and exactly what the Bible
teaches, is often aired. This can be a serious problem, but one that can be
overcome within the research design by incorporating the theological steering
concept of liturgical inculturation4. It is not possible to go deeply into the notion of
3
liturgical inculturation here. Basically the concept entails a critical-reciprocal
interaction or enrichment between cult/liturgy and culture in such a way that a
whole new entity comes into being, namely an inculturated liturgy. Chupungco’s
(1982:81) often-quoted straightforward example sheds light here, namely that the
process of liturgical inculturation entails that A (liturgy) + B (culture) = C (a new
entity/inculturated liturgy) and not A + B = AB. In this process of liturgical
inculturation the liturgy criticises some aspects of the culture and embraces
others and vice versa. Such an approach makes it possible to rethink,
reformulate and live anew the Christian faith in each human culture (see Bosch
1991:452), and for the Christian liturgy this means that its rituals and symbols
can be an adequate expression of people’s praise without the fear of
consumerism.
What is important then, when rituals are being researched in the field, is that the
research methodology must be able to incorporate the documentation of both the
enactment, as well as the appropriation of the ritual by the participants. Rituals
are, however, always embedded within a larger cultural system. In any context
there is a very close link between cult/liturgy and context/culture, and therefore
the immediate culture in which the rituals are found must also be described (on
the link between cult and culture, see Barnard 2001; 2002a and 2002b). It would,
however, be impossible to document this “culture” in extenso, and therefore
selection is inevitable. Demographic data can be of help here, as well
participants’ own view on the culture. If, for example, the research question is “In
what way do rituals function as generators of social capital with regards to
poverty in the Paarl region (South Africa)?”, it is necessary to be able to locate
the collected ritual data within the larger South African “culture of poverty”, as
well as specifically within the smaller “culture of poverty” of the Paarl region, as
well as the “context of poverty” of the specific faith community in which the ritual
was documented. Thus, along with the actual performed ritual and the
appropriation of the ritual by the participants, the qualification '‘within its multiple
contexts'’ should be added here.
The aim of using PAR in this kind of liturgical research is thus, among other
things, the documentation of the research object and its cultural setting and
ascertaining the nature of the appropriation of the object by the respondents. All
the ritual data must be collected by a participant observer with what Lukken calls
a '‘tamed intuition’' (Lukken 1997:145), so that the data can be incorporated into
a larger liturgical-scientific research design5.
4. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF PARTICIPATORY ACTION
RESEARCH WITHIN LITURGICAL INQUIRIES
PAR6 is a method that breaks through a modernist-positivist epistemology, in
which a subject-object split is kept in place, and replaces it with a humanistic
approach7. This is attained by the traditionally uninvolved researcher participating
in the whole research process, and the traditionally silent respondents being
4
given a voice along with the researchers. This means that there is collaboration
between subject and object in the generation of knowledge 8. But what exactly is
meant by PAR? Some additional remarks will shed some light on the term.
The participatory part of the term refers to the researcher and the respondents
who both participate in the rituals and the whole research process. In the socalled non-participatory research process, the researcher does not participate in
the everyday routine of the context in which the research is being conducted (see
Bernard, 1988:148-179)9. The fact that the respondents also gain access to the
process of generating the knowledge means that the research is more than just
participatory research, but PAR10. PAR must also be distinguished from '‘action
research’', which is conducted in order to find a solution to a specific problem.
The latter type of research is thus aimed at problem solving and not on theorising
(see Huysamen 1994:176–177). Hendriks (2004:217&219) quotes De Vos
describing “participatory action research as an alternative system of knowledge
production, based on the subjects’ involvement in decisions regarding the
questions asked”, and also as “a research process where people involved in the
situation being studied, are enabled (in partnership with researchers and other
role-players) to become actively involved in collective efforts to address and
solve their social problems”. Therefore PAR is a research methodology that
empowers local communities.
As has already been stated, such an approach has scientific and political
consequences. Through the involvement of both researcher and subject the
power inherent in the research process is shared between these two role-players
(see Babbie & Mouton 2001:58-59). There are a whole series of techniques that
can be used in this kind of research – Hendriks (2004:219-221) gives a list of
fifteen features of PAR. In this article, however, we are specifically looking at
PAR as pertaining to the study of rituals, and with this in mind some observations
regarding research techniques will now be made. It is important to remember that
this is not a blueprint and that different kinds of rituals can often mean that
different kinds of instruments will be needed, and often specific methods for the
collection of data have to be developed in the field itself. Here only some
suggestions will be made that can be used, but which will often be in need of
adaptation for a specific context. The following techniques are especially useful
when rituals are the object of research.
4.1. Categorising
A first instrument that can be adapted according to need comes from the ritual
expert Ronald Grimes. Grimes (1995:24–38) gives a series of questions in a
chapter entitled “Mapping the field of ritual”, which a researcher can ask in the
field concerning the rituals encountered. Along with these questions, he also
presents six headings under which the ritual data can be systematised, namely
ritual space, ritual time, ritual objects, ritual sounds and language, ritual identity
and, lastly, ritual action. According to Swinkels and Post (2003:224), Grimes’s
5
headings “are known in both anthropology and liturgical studies circles and they
form the basis of almost all ethnographic instrumentation”. A participant observer
can use these categories in his/her field notes when the ritual data are being
recorded.
In the field a researcher may experience that it is not unproblematic to
systematise a ritual or liturgical celebration neatly into these six categories,
because in some way or another they are all interlinked and overlap. So, for
example, the ritual space (where precisely everyone is sitting or standing) is
closely linked with the ritual identity of all the participants. It is, however, exactly
in the attempt to separate these elements that these links and meanings come to
the fore more noticeably.
4.2 Thick descriptions
So-called '‘thick descriptions’' (see Geertz 1973:3-30) can be applied as a good
method to record ritual activity. Thick descriptions entail highly detailed accounts
of what has been experienced in the field, so that one short interaction can cover
a couple of pages of '‘thick’' descriptions and the analysis of the interaction can
be a very complex exercise (Bailey 1996:4). The term itself Geertz (see 1973:330) borrows from Gilbert Ryle, who distinguishes between a '‘thin description’'
and a '‘thick description’'. Where a thin description will, for example, only record
that a boy has twitched his eye, a thick description will record that he is
“practicing a burlesque of a friend faking a wink to deceive an innocent into
thinking a conspiracy is in motion” (Geertz 1973:6-7)11.
When making thick descriptions of rituals, '‘mental notes’' (remembering who is
usually present, who talks first, who leaves first, etc) and '‘jotted notes’' (quotes,
details which are easily forgotten, personal emotions, etc) are also helpful. In
addition to this a researcher can also jot down his/her own biases which they are
aware of, as well as personal interpretations of what is happening. The
interpretations can later be compared with respondents’ own interpretations of
what they do/did. A last recommendation in this regard is to write down what has
been experienced as soon as possible. Preferably this should be done during the
ritual activity itself, but if a researcher is convinced that this will elicit too much
reactivity from the participants, it should be done as soon as possible afterwards.
In addition to thick descriptions of the rituals, audio recordings of the words that
are being spoken or sung during the performance can also be made. What is
important to note here is that the style in which the words are being uttered, like
the preaching style in which a sermon is being delivered, adds to the meaning of
the words. These paralinguistic aspects should also be recorded and helpful
information in this regard can be found in the field of so-called performance
theory12.
4.3 Visual media
6
In this subsection only the use of photography13 as medium in the research of
rituals will be discussed. It is, however, important to take into account that every
visual medium that is used in the documentation of information, for example
video recordings or photography, requires a distinct approach in documentation,
analysis and interpretation.
The researcher/photographer does often not realise that he/she is steering the
whole photographic process by, among other things, deciding what to
photograph without disclosing personal preferences and biases. The whole
perception that photographs present the truth must be challenged, since
photographs are context bound and there are numerous role players involved in
the generation of meaning from photographs14.
In order to try and overcome some of these obstacles, the photographer can try
and photograph the subject matter from the perspective of the cultural lens of
those who are being photographed. This will be an attempt to photograph the
people participating in their ritual in the way they see themselves, and not solely
from the perspective of the researcher. Furthermore, images of chaos should
make way for images portraying a community’s creative intelligence, and for this
the researcher should try to understand the culture. In addition, the taking of the
photos should be guided by theory, so that the information can be generated,
organised and presented in a way that can be verbalised (Harper 1994:408-410).
A useful technique to stimulate cooperation between researcher and subject and
to break through the one-way traffic from researcher to subject is to show
photographs of the subjects to the subjects themselves in order to stimulate
dialogue (Ball & Smith 1992:61). A last technique that will be mentioned here is
one that tries to deconstruct the existing mode of documentary photography
which often just focuses on the weird or the strange, by placing the photographs
in juxtaposition to other fragments from the culture. All these techniques are
nothing more than attempts to make a researcher more critical and less naive,
and to confront ideology (Harper 1994:411).
The aforementioned observations can help to avoid many obstacles and make
the whole process less subjective. Nevertheless, it is important to take
cognisance of the fact, firstly, that the use of visual media within the research
process is a whole field of study on its own, and secondly, that different types of
visual media need different approaches.
4.4 Interviews and focus group activities
After the ritual data have been recorded (thick description, photographs, etc), it is
also necessary to involve the participants/respondents in this process15. As Victor
Turner (1969:7) remarked himself concerning his own field work: “But it is one
thing to observe people performing the stylized gestures and singing the cryptic
songs of ritual performances and quite another to reach an adequate
7
understanding of what the movements and words mean to them”. Respondents
can help to highlight important details that the researcher could have overlooked,
and also help to understand how they appropriate (see Frijhoff 1997) the rituals
in which they participate. But besides the understanding of appropriation, these
activities also help to ensure that power in the research process (see Babbie &
Mouton 2001:61) is being distributed equally between researcher and those who
are being researched. Such activities are important in all the phases of the
research, from the initial planning up until the dissemination of the results and
implementation of strategies. This is also typical of PAR, because as a research
methodology it also concerns itself with productive work (Babbie & Mouton
2001:62). Two helpful techniques are interviews and focus group activities. Here
only some aspects regarding these techniques will now be discussed.
There are different kinds of interviews that can be used; however, the more
informal types are preferred in PAR16. Here researchers can especially make use
of informal unstructured and semi-structured interviews. Along with this it is
important to know that every single conversation (telephone, at tea after the
service, etc) is important and should be recorded. The sum total of individual
interviews, however, is not equal to the collective voice of, for example, the
congregation participating in the rituals/liturgy. Therefore focus group activities
are also important, such as time lines, space tours and group discussions about
the rituals (see Ammerman et al 1998; Hendriks 2004:231-234).
When interviews and group activities are being conducted, it is important that the
composition of the group and the selection of interviewees are representative of
the congregation or group as a whole17. So, for example, Stringer (1999:64)
critiques Victor Turner’s field work on the rituals of the Ndembu of Zambia as he
was too much indebted to only one ritual expert, namely Muchona the Hornet,
who quite obviously made up a lot of what he told Turner right there and then.
4.5 Ethics and politics
Saying a few words on ethics is important, especially because of the nature of
rituals. Rituals are very personal and private activities that reveal much about the
participants themselves. It is for that reason important to first obtain informed
consent (see Punch 1994:90; Huysamen 1994:180-181), despite the fact that
some scholars object to this, saying that it will make the observation unnatural
(Huysamen 1994:179). Some argue that total honesty can hurt people, because
of the nature of what is sometimes revealed through research and that some
degree of misleading is helpful (Bailey 1996:12-13), and therefore the true
reasons for the research is only revealed after the research has been done. The
truth and end of the process thus make up for the lie with which the process was
started (Babbie 1989:476-477). Nevertheless, misleading people goes against
the basic rights of groups and individuals and will be contrary to the message of
the Gospel. Furthermore, informed participation by respondents is crucial as an
addition to the documented ritual data, and their voices are an integral addition in
8
the process of the generation of meaning and an important correction to the
perspective of the researcher. In this regard Thumma (1998:203) comments:
“The best way to correct for the inadequacies of observation is to talk with those
you have been watching”. Ethics and reliability thus overlap in PAR in that
consent (the ethical dimension) and informed participation (the scientific
dimension) combine to break through the traditional rational discourse of one
dominant researcher by also giving outsiders a voice. When observing rituals
within a congregation, it is important to gain informed consent via the correct
channels (eg church council, leaders, ministers) and make sure that members
participating in rituals know that they are being observed.
Other ethical considerations include safety and confidentiality, but only the latter
will be touched upon here. Concerning confidentiality, 18 it is important to judge
carefully whether revealing the identity of an individual or group will be beneficial
or not for the particular group. It is, however, often helpful to make private
knowledge public in order for healing to take place (Ammerman et al 1998:9).
These ethical considerations are only the tip of the iceberg, and any researcher
should make a careful study of all the possible ethical implications of his/her
study.
According to Grimes (1990:214), reflexive ethnographies reveal how field
workers are bearers of dominant culture who are in actual fact themselves
constructing those whom they are studying. In this regard (as has been stated
numerous times in this article) dialogue is necessary between the formally
schooled researchers and those with popular knowledge who are being observed
in order to understand the ritual and its context (see, among others, Reason
1994:328). This is exactly what PAR aims at attaining, namely that the
researcher’s perspective does not remain the dominant perspective, but that an
inclusive pluriform perspective is produced by means of dialogue. This means
that the researcher must remain highly sensitive to this throughout the process.
Babbie and Mouton (2001:61-62) summarise in four points the methodological
and epistemological basis of PAR, showing how epistemology and ideology are
inherently bound up together. The four ways in which PAR is then different to
other similar methodologies are all political in nature: (i) the difference in the
location of power; (ii) PAR explicitly enters the political arena; (iii) PAR is not only
a methodology for science, but also for productive work and lastly (iv) PAR
accentuates the importance of experiential knowing (including thinking, feeling
and acting). This political dimension of PAR is one of the most important qualities
of the approach which distinguishes it from other similar approaches. Babbie and
Mouton (2001:59) refer to Hall, who says the research community needs to
identify with those on the periphery, the poor and oppressed in society. In their
book The practice of social research Babbie and Mouton (2001:59-61) also
describe the historical development of the PAR research paradigm and show the
differences between the northern and southern schools19. Despite the
differences, they quote Whyte’s definition of PAR as one that incorporates both
9
traditions, namely: “[PAR] involves some members of the subjects of study
participating actively in all phases of the process from the design of the project,
through its implementation, and including the actions that come with or follow up
the research”.
5. CONCLUSION
Researchers working with a ritual-liturgical perspective within the field of liturgy
and who start with the actual performed ritual as object for research will do well
by making use of PAR. This method, applied to the phenomenon of ritual,
however, does require some special considerations. This article is a preliminary
attempt to explore of some of these considerations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amalorpavadass, DS. 1990. Theological reflections on inculturation. Studia
Liturgica 20:36 – 54.
Ammerman, NT, Carroll, JW, Dudley, CS & W McKinney (eds). 1998. Studying
congregations: a new handbook. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Babbie, E. 1989. The practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Babbie, E & Mouton, J. 2001. The practice of social research. (With contributions
by Payze Vorster Boshoff Prozesky). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Ball, MS & Smith, GWH. 1992. Analyzing visual data: qualitative research
methods, vol 24. Newbury Park / London / New Delhi: Sage Publications
Barnard, M. 1998. Liturgiewetenschap als discipline, in De weg van de liturgie:
tradities, achtergronden, praktijk geredigeerd door P Oskamp & N Schuman.
Zoetermeer: Meinema.
Barnard, M. 2000. Liturgiek als wetenschap van christelijke riten en symbolen.
Amsterdam: Vossiuspers.
Barnard, M. 2001. Dynamiek van cultus en cultuur, in Ritueel bestek.
antropologische kernwoorden van de liturgie geredigeerd door M Barnard & P
Post. Zoetermeer: Meinema.
Barnard, M. 2002a. Tendensen in de dynamiek van cultus en cultuur:
perspectieven in de liturgiewetenschap, in Nieuwe wegen in de liturgie: de weg
van de liturgie - een vervolg, geredigeerd door M Barnard & N Schuman.
Zoetemeer: Meinema.
10
Barnard, M. 2002b. Prinses Diana als postmoderne heilige en een kerkdienst in
een museum: tendensen in de dynamiek van cultus en cultuur vanuit een WestEuropees perspectief. Verbum et Ecclesia 22(2): 209 - 230.
Barthes, R. 1980. Camera Lucida: reflections on photography. Translated into
English by Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang.
Bailey, CA. 1996. A guide to field research. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi:
Pine Forge Press.
Bernard, HR. 1988. Research methods in cultural anthropology. Newbury Park/
London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Bosch, DJ. 1991. Transforming mission: paradigm shifts in theology of mission.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Chupungco, AJ. 1982. Cultural adaptation of the liturgy. New York: Paulist Press.
De Klerk, BJ. 1999. Skuldbelydenis en versoening as kommunikatiewe handeling
in die liturgie van die samekoms van die lewe. Praktiese Teologie in Suid-Afrika.
14(1):23- 45.
Frijhoff, W. 1997. Toeëigening: van bezitsdrang naar betekenisgeving. Trajecta
6(2):99 - 118.
Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Grimes, RL. 1990. Ritual criticism. case studies in its practice: essays on its
theory. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Grimes, RL. 1995. Beginnings in ritual studies, revised edition. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press.
Harper, D. 1994. On the authority of the image. visual methods at the
crossroads, in Handbook of qualitative research, edited by NK Denzin, & YS
Lincoln. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Hendriks, HJ. 2004. Studying congregations in Africa. NetAct. Wellington: Lux
Verbi.
Huysamen, GK. 1994. Methodology for the social and behavioural sciences.
Halfway House: Southern Book Publishers.
Lukken, G. 1989. Liturgie en zintuiglijkheid: over de betekenis van lichamelijkheid
in de liturgie. Liturgiekategese. Hilversum: Gooi & Sticht.
11
Lukken, G. 1994. Inculturatie en de toekoms van de liturgie. Heeswijk-Dinther:
Uitgeverij Abdij van Berne.
Lukken, G. 1997. Liturgiewetenschappelijk onderzoek in culturele context.
Metodische verheldering en vragen. Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek 13:135 –
148.
Lukken, G. 1999. Rituelen in overvloed. Een kritische bezinning op de plaats en
de gestalte van het christelijke ritueel in onze cultuur. Baarn: Gooi & Sticht.
Lutheran World Federation. 1998. Chicago statement on worship and culture:
baptism and rites of life passage. Studia Liturgica 28, 244 – 252.
Post, PGJ. 1995a. Zeven notities over rituele verandering, traditie en
(vergelijkende) liturgiewetenschap. Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek 11:1 - 30.
Post, PGJ. 1995b. “An excellent game…”: On playing the mass, in Bread of
heaven: customs and practices surrounding Holy Communion. Essays in the
history of liturgy and culture (Liturgia Condenda 3), edited by C Caspers, G
Lukken & G Rouwhorst. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House.
Post, PGJ. 1996. Liturgische bewegingen en feestcultuur. Een landelijk
liturgiewetenschappelijk onderzoeksprogramma. Jaarboek voor liturgieonderzoek 12:21 - 55.
Post, PGJ. 2001a. Liturgical movements and feast culture. A Dutch research
program, in Christian feast and festival. The dynamics of Western liturgy and
culture, edited by PGJ Post, G. Rouwhorst, L. van Tongeren & A. Scheer.
Leuven: Peeters.
Post, PGJ. 2001b. Introduction and application. Feast as a key concept in a
liturgical studies research, in Christian feast and festival. The dynamics of
Western liturgy and culture, edited by PGJ Post, G. Rouwhorst, L. van Tongeren
& A. Scheer. Leuven: Peeters.
Punch, M. 1994. Politics and ethics in qualitative research. in Handbook of
qualitative research, edited by NK Denzin, & YS Lincoln. Thousand Oaks/
London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Reason, P. 1994. Three approaches to participative inquiry. in Handbook of
qualitative research, edited by NK Denzin, & YS Lincoln. Thousand Oaks/
London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Sontag, S. 1989 (first published 1977). On photography. New York: Anchor
Books Doubleday.
12
Stewart, A. 1998. The ethnographer’s method. Qualitative research methods
Series 46. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Stringer, MD. 1989. Liturgy and anthropology: the history of a relationship.
Worship 63/6:503 - 521.
Stringer, MD. 1999. On the perception of worship. Birmingham: Birmingham
University Press.
Swinkels, T & Post, P. 2003. Beginnings in ritual studies according to Ronald
Grimes”. Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek 19:215 – 238.
Thumma, SL. 1998. Methods for congregational study, in Studying
congregations: a new handbook, edited by NT Ammerman, JW Carroll, CS
Dudley & W McKinney. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Turner, VW. 1969. The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wepener, CJ. 2000. Liturgie en versoening. 'n Ondersoek na die inkulturasie van
rituele van versoening in Suid-Afrika (‘n ondersoeksvoorstel). MTh-verhandeling,
Universiteit van Stellenbosch.
Wepener, CJ. 2004. Van vas tot fees. 'n Ritueel-liturgiese ondersoek na
versoening binne Suid-Afrikaanse kultuurkontekste. DTh-proefskrif Universiteit
van Stellenbosch
13
Wepener, CJ. 2005. The object and aim of multi-disciplinary liturgical research.
Scriptura (forthcoming).
1
This material is based upon work supported by the National Research Foundation under Grant number
2054070. Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those
of the author and therefore the NRF does not accept any liability in regard thereto.
The approach and techniques discussed in this article will be implemented in this project, specifically
looking at ritual and the generation of social capital in a context of poverty in South Africa.
2
The study of the liturgy is undertaken by various scholars from wide-ranging perspectives. Consequently
there are also various names for the field, eg Liturgy, Liturgical Science and Liturgiology (see Grimes
1990:214). Within the field of liturgy in the Netherlands, both Protestant and Roman Catholics scholars
adopt
numerous
approaches.
Barnard,
a
Protestant
scholar,
identifies
a
practical
theological/anthropological, a systematic, a historical as well as a biblical-theological approach (Barnard
1998:94; Barnard 2000). The Roman Catholic liturgist, Post, distinguishes between nine approaches,
namely a historical, an anthropological, a semiotic, a pastoral-liturgical, a empirical-liturgical, an approach
from the arts (image, music, space, bodily expression/dance), an approach from systematic theology
(theology of the liturgy and sacrament theology), other approaches such as from Women Studies or
Spirituality, and lastly a biblical-theological approach (Post 1995a:19–20; Post 1996:3; Post 2001).
3
A good example within the domain of so-called Ritual Studies is the “qualities of ritual” of Ronald
Grimes (see Grimes 1990:14).
4
For more on the concept of liturgical inculturation, see also Amalorpavadass (1990), Chupungco (1982),
De Klerk (2001), Lukken (1994; 1997 & 1999:127.133) and Lutheran World Federation (1998).
5
For a good example of such a research design within the field of liturgy, see Post (2001b).
6
There are several websites specifically devoted to PAR, of which the following are two good examples:
http://www.parnet.org/ and http://www.goshen.edu/soan/soan96p.htm
7
For a diagram describing the differences between a “positivistic paradigm” and “humanistic paradigm”
with regards to research, see Hendriks (2004:216).
8
See in this regard the section about the history of the qualitative paradigm and the rise of PAR in Babbie
and Mouton (2001:53-68). In line with this Bosch (1991:453) describes how the primary agents in the
process of inculturation are the local faith community and the Holy Spirit, and not as in the past the
benevolent missionary. See also Hendriks (2004:74 and 219).
9
“If you make up a questionnaire in your office, send it out and wait for the mail to bring your data in,
that’s not field research. If you take a random sample of a community, go door to door, and do a series of
face-to-face interviews, that is field research – but it’s not participant observation. If you go to a native
market in a community that you’ve never visited before, and monitor the behaviour of patrons and clients
as they go through their transactions, that too is field research, but it isn’t participant observation.” See also
in this regard Stewart (1998:6).
10
For a discussion on these differences see, Reason (1994:327–323).
11
For a full description of this example, which is rather helpful in explaining the concept ‘thick
description’, see Geertz (1973:6-7). And for a short description of different techniques as used in
Congregational Studies see Hendriks (2004:231-234).
12
See for example the chart from 1912, which is currently still being used by renowned homilists such as
Prof Jana Childers at the San Francisco Theological Seminary. Information obtained from a paper delivered
by Prof Childers at a conference titled Homiletics and liturgy today, hosted by Buvton, Stellenbosch
University (31 March 2004).
13
After the discovery of photography in the nineteenth century, it was especially used in the classification
of races, and photos were regarded as phenomena which portray the truth in a realistic fashion. In the
twentieth century the focus of the social sciences largely shifted to social structures which are not easily
photographed, and therefore the popularity of the medium within research waned. In the course of the
twentieth century photography was ‘rediscovered’ as a medium, but now coupled with explanatory texts.
14
But fully-fledged Visual Sociology only came in existence in the 1960s because of the popularity of
documentary photography. This documentary photography usually dealt with social problems which
sociologist regarded as central to their subject. As sociology became more scientific, photography became
more artistic, and so it came about that theory about the social reality being photographed was largely
negated. For example, the focus of documentary photography was on social problems, with the aim of
stimulating change, but in actual fact it did the opposite. So instead of providing insights into the problems
of the Third World, for example, the idea of total chaos was just reinforced by the images (see Harper
1994: 403 – 407; see also Wepener 2000:99-102). For the use of photography with liturgy see also, Post
(1995b).
14
See in this regard, among others Barthes (1980) and Sontag (1989:6), who says that “photographers are
always imposing standards on their subjects”.
15
As mentioned earlier, respondents are involved not only after the documentation of the rituals in order to
document their appropriation of the rituals, but throughout the whole process, also and especially too
during the formulation of the research question(s).
16
Interviews will not be discussed in detail here as the possible approaches are described in almost every
handbook on social research. For a very helpful discussion on some of the different types to be used within
congregations along with useful tips, see Ammerman (1998).
17
Once again most handbooks on this topic give very useful advice in this regard.
18
Babbie (1989:475) distinguishes between confidentiality and anonymity, where the latter refers to the
process of research where a particular response cannot be identified with a specific respondent.
19
The southern and northern schools share the same name for their research approach, but they differ on
values and ideologies, the boundaries of participation and the organization of joint inquiry (see Babbie &
Mouton 2001:60).
15