Doctrine after Christendom: The Public Impact of Research in Christian Doctrine

最近，关于衡量学术研究对大学以外世界的“影响”的想法引发了很多争论。一些争论是关于衡量影响的原则，作为评估学术价值的一种手段；然而，有些是关于测量的细节。我们能否以一种公正的方式来衡量影响，使研究人员对他们可能做的好事、他们做这件事的背景和发生的时间尺度感到公正？我们能否以一种公正的方式来衡量这些问题的答案，这些问题可能是由各种非学术受众或利益相关者提出的，这些人应该会产生影响？当我们审视基督教教义领域的研究时，这些问题会引起特别的共鸣。在某种程度上，这是因为该领域的研究人员声称与大学外的社区有联系。毕竟，许多基督教教义的研究人员说，他们的工作涉及到大学以外的基督教社区的生活，并最终为这些社区带来某种利益或贡献。在某种程度上，影响的问题在这一领域有特别的共鸣，因为在“后基督教世界”的情况下，基督教教义研究对更广泛的公众的相关性，超出了各种基督教社区，受到了深刻的争议。许多基督教教义的研究人员会谈到他们的学科不仅对大学和教会负有责任，而且对更广阔的世界负有责任。那么，基督教教义研究的“影响”有哪些呢？研究人员、教会和那些参与“对更广阔的世界”责任的人是如何看待这种影响的？为了回答这些问题，我们将从不同的大学（和不同的基督教教派）聚集一个基督教教义研究的核心团队，并举行一系列的研讨会。在讨论基本问题的初始会议之后，我们将与能够谈论影响和教会的研究人员和实践者举行一次研讨会，与能够谈论影响和政治或公共政策的研究人员和实践者举行一次研讨会，以及与能够谈论影响和文化（流行文化和高雅文化）的研究人员和实践者举行一次研讨会。核心团队的最后一次会议将帮助我们改进该过程所要产生的报告。我们相信，这个过程将使我们能够向全国基督教教义研究人员社区报告，帮助他们批判性和建设性地思考对我们学科的影响意味着什么，以及可以追求的方式。这些反馈可能使一些研究人员能够为2013年卓越研究框架改进他们的影响案例研究，但更重要的是，将帮助他们思考他们的长期影响方法。然而，我们也相信，这一过程将使我们能够向AHRC报告，作为一个学科严肃对待影响问题的一个例子，并作为一种贡献和刺激，在多个学科之间展开更广泛的辩论，讨论我们所做的各种好事的最适当的问责形式，以及不适当的衡量和问责形式。

There has been a lot of debate recently about the idea of measuring the 'impact' of academic research on the world beyond the university. Some of the debate has been about the very principle of measuring impact as a means of assessing the worthiness of scholarship; some, however, has been about the details of the measurement. Can we measure impact in a way that does justice to the researchers' own sense of the kind of good they might do, of the contexts in which they do it, and of the timescales over which it happens? And can we measure impact in a way that does justice to the answers to these questions that might be given by the various non-academic audiences or stakeholders amongst whom the impact is supposed to be happening?These questions take on a particular resonance when we look at research in the area of Christian Doctrine. In part, that is because of existing claims about connections to communities outside the university made by researchers in this area. After all, many researchers in Christian doctrine say that their work involves some kind of engagement with the life of Christian communities outside the university, and some kind of eventual benefit for or contribution to those communities.In part, the question of impact has particular resonance in this area because, in a situation 'after Christendom', the relevance of Christian doctrinal research to a wider public, beyond the various Christian communities, is deeply contested. Many researchers in Christian doctrine will speak about the responsibilities of their discipline not just to the university and to the churches, but also to the wider world.So what are the kinds of 'impact' that research in Christian doctrine does have and can have? How is that impact seen by the researchers, by the churches, and by those involved in the contexts in which responsibility 'to the wider world' might be pursued?In order to answer these questions, we will gather a core team of researchers in Christian doctrine from different universities (and different Christian denominations), and hold a series of symposia. After an initial meeting to discuss the basic issues, we will hold one symposium with researchers and practitioners able to speak about impact and the churches, one with researchers and practitioners able to speak about impact and politics or public policy, and one with researchers and practitioners able to speak about impact and culture (both popular culture and high culture). A final meeting of the core team will help us refine the reports that the process is designed to yield.We believe that the process will allow us to report back to the community of researchers in Christian Doctrine nationwide - to help them think critically and constructively about what impact means for our discipline, and about the ways in which it can be pursued. That feedback may enable some of those researchers to refine their impact case studies for the 2013 Research Excellence Framework, but more importantly will help them think about their approach to impact longer term.We also believe, however, that the process will allow us to report back to the AHRC as one example of a discipline taking the issue of impact with critical seriousness, and as a contribution and stimulus to wider debate between multiple disciplines about the most appropriate forms of accountability for our claims about the kinds of good that we do - and about the forms of measurement and accountability that are inappropriate.