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

最近有很多关于衡量学术研究对大学以外世界的“影响”的争论。一些争论是关于衡量影响力作为评估奖学金价值的一种手段的原则;然而，一些争论是关于衡量的细节。我们能否以一种公正的方式来衡量影响力？这种方式既符合研究人员自己对他们可能做的好事的感觉，也符合他们做好事的背景，以及发生好事的时间尺度。我们能否以一种公正的方式来衡量影响，以回答这些问题，这些问题可能是由各种非学术观众或利益相关者给出的，而这些影响应该是在他们中间发生的？当我们审视基督教教义领域的研究时，这些问题引起了特别的共鸣。在某种程度上，这是因为该领域的研究人员提出了与大学以外社区联系的现有主张。毕竟，许多研究基督教教义的人都说，他们的工作涉及到大学以外的基督教社区的生活，以及对这些社区的某种最终利益或贡献。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“后基督教时代”的情况下，基督教教义研究与更广泛的公众的相关性，在基督教社会之外，这是一个很有争议的问题。许多研究基督教教义的人会谈到他们的学科不仅对大学和教会的责任，而且对更广泛的世界的责任。那么，基督教教义研究确实有什么样的“影响”，以及可能有什么样的影响？研究人员、教会和那些参与到“对更广阔世界”的责任可能被追求的背景中的人是如何看待这种影响的？为了回答这些问题，我们将聚集来自不同大学（和不同基督教教派）的基督教教义研究人员的核心团队，并举行一系列研讨会。在讨论基本问题的初步会议之后，我们将与能够谈论影响和教会的研究人员和从业人员举行一次研讨会，一次与能够谈论影响和政治或公共政策的研究人员和从业人员举行一次研讨会，一次与能够谈论影响和文化（流行文化和高雅文化）的研究人员和从业人员举行一次研讨会。核心团队的最后一次会议将帮助我们完善该过程旨在产生的报告。我们相信，该过程将使我们能够向全国基督教教义研究者社区报告-帮助他们批判性地和建设性地思考对我们学科的影响意味着什么，以及如何追求它。这些反馈可能使其中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，这将有助于他们思考他们的长期影响方法。并作为一个贡献和刺激更广泛的辩论之间的多学科的最适当的形式的问责制为我们的索赔种类的好，我们做的-以及有关的形式的测量和问责制是不适当的。

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.