Towards Consensus On The Conceptualisation of Spirituality

Towards Consensus on the Conceptualisation of Spirituality
Andrew Joshua Agius Bachelor of Social Science (Honours) 2012 University of Western Sydney
Acknowledgements It may be difficult to substantiate the assertion of any absolute impossibility. Suffice to say however, that without the inspiration, support and/or care afforded to me by the following individuals, it is likely that this thesis would have neither been commenced nor completed. I would like to extend my sincerest thanks and kindest regards toward the following individuals (in no particular order):
Brooklyn Brady
Kristy Dawson
Joel Apthorpe
Peta Webber
Elizabeth Janos
Eden Zell
Vanessa Weir
Dr. Alphia Possamai-Inesedy
Dr. Caelum Arness
Dr. Agnes Petocz
Dr. Adam Possamai
Statement of Authentication The work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original except as acknowledged in the text. I hereby declare that I have not submitted this material, either in full or in part, for a degree at this or any other institution. Signed: ____________________________________ Andrew Joshua Agius
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES ABBREVIATIONS ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Psychology, Operationism and Spirituality Sociology, Spirituality, Ambiguity and Non-Definition Empirical Approaches The Neglect of Definition Spirituality-in-Relation & Cultural Considerations Conclusion THE RESEARCH QUESTION CHAPTER ONE: ADDRESSING THE SPIRITUALITY PROBLEM How can Social Scientists Determine the Nature of Spirituality? Webers Teachers On the Role of the Social Scientist What is Science? Humes Guillotine CHAPTER TWO: FIELD WORK METHODOLOGY Participants The Australian Christian Churches Sample Introducing the ACC Sample Respondents The Mind Body Spirit Sample Introducing the MBS Sample Respondents Analysis CHAPTER THREE: FIELD WORK FINDINGS What is Spirituality? What is Spirituality? Conclusions Does Religion Relate to Spirituality? Does Religion Relate to Spirituality Conclusions Spirituality: Whats God got to do with it? Spirituality: Whats God got to do with it? Conclusions CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A Interview Schedule Appendix B Participant Information Sheet II III IV 1 2 4 6 9 13 15 16 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 27 27 34 35 42 46 53 57 61 64 65 66
List of Tables
Table 1. Frequency of References to Religion Table 2. Frequency of References to Deities
II
Abbreviations
ACC Australian Christian Churches MBS Mind Body Spirit
III
Abstract
Whilst spirituality has been the subject of a considerable body of social research, it has been identified as inadequately conceptualised (Hill et al., 2000, Wood, 2010). This thesis identifies a number of problems within existing research regarding spirituality. The issues highlighted include, but are not limited to, social scientists reliance on operational definitions (Hill et al., 2000) and the semantically ambiguous use of multiple disparate definitions within the field of study (Wood, 2010). The aforementioned lack of adequate conceptualisation was also noted as leading to premature avenues of inquiry into spirituality. The importance of crosscultural applicability of research methodologies was also noted. Philosophical inquiry highlighted self-identified spiritual social organisations including the Shri Ram Chandra Mission (2005) and the Mind Body Spirit Festival (2012). Similarly, individuals have asserted socially relevant spiritual applications such as spiritual healing services (Heelas and Woodhead, 2005), establishing the pertinence of spirituality within social research. It was resolved that spirituality, which is not directly observable (Heelas, 2008) can necessarily only be understood through the accounts of those who identify with and assert the phenomenon. As such, the present research sought to investigate the research question: What is spirituality? A qualitative, semi-structured pilot study was formulated, with six participants sampled from two spiritually identifying organisations the Australian Christian Churches and the Mind Body Spirit Festival (Sydney) in order to explore respondents understandings of spirituality. Novel findings include a respondents conceptualisation of spirituality as an external reality, as opposed to an internal phenomenon and diverse understandings of both deities and religion vis--vis spirituality.
IV

University of Western Sydney - Bachelor of Social Science (Honours) Andrew Joshua Agius
2012
It has been suggested that scholarly interest in spirituality was emergent of a contemporary Western shift away from religion, and toward less materialistic value systems (Holmes, 2007, Tacey, 2004). In the social sciences, spirituality has become the focus of a vast and ever-growing body of literature. Sociologists have asserted that spirituality is pertinent to social scientific inquiry (see for example, Wood, 2010). Similarly, psychological researchers have highlighted that spirituality clearly warrants investigation (Miller and Thoresen, 2003, p.24). It is also noted that Spirituality has been held to have interdisciplinary relevance to the fields of anthropology, business, education, medicine and healthcare (Holmes, 2007). Early social research into spirituality considered this phenomenon within a religious context. For example, the beginnings of the diverse, eclectic spiritualities observed in the contemporary milieu were identified by Luckmann (1967), in his treatise on what he recognised as a hidden, individual religiosity that differed from the more widely examined institutional manifestations. Bruce (2002) has since presented his view of spirituality through a lens of personal, individual religiosity of lesser practical social consequence than institutional religion. On the other hand, Heelas and Woodhead (2005) have considered the two as separate concepts, asserting a contemporary shift from religion to spirituality. Whilst spirituality has been identified and explored as pertinent to social research, it has been widely acknowledged that spirituality is insufficiently conceptualised (Wood, 2010). Indeed, if spirituality is a form of human experience/expression that has any role in individual thought bearing influence on social behaviour, interpersonal relations, societal formations, culture or social institutions then spirituality can be held to be pertinent to social research. However, in order to critically engage with
1

2012
the claim that spirituality is relevant in the social sciences, we must begin by answering the question: What is spirituality? Accordingly, this analysis will proceed with a critical overview of social-scientific inquiry into the nature of spirituality. Psychology, Operationism and Spirituality Whilst this thesis is an exercise in sociology, it remains that spirituality is also a focus of research within other social-scientific disciplines. Furthermore, it has been asserted that despite having generated a considerable body of literature, the sociology of spirituality is in its infancy, due to a narrow intra-disciplinary focus (Possamai-Inesedy, 2009). It is therefore pertinent to consider the understandings of spirituality across disciplines; remaining mindful that sociology is not the sole stakeholder within scholarly inquiry into spirituality. One widely-cited psychological review by Hill et al. (2000) assessed the state of the conceptualisation of spirituality in psychology. Within the article, Hill et al. (2000) explored a number of psychological approaches to defining spirituality, highlighting that at present, spirituality is inadequately conceptualised. Amongst the future directions suggested, the authors assert that the definition of spirituality is in dire need of empirical grounding and improved operationalization (Hill et al., 2000, p.65). Indeed to use psychological parlance an empirically grounded conceptualisation of spirituality, reflecting systematic observations would benefit from strengthened validity. Validity can be understood as the degree to which the research accurately examines what it purports to examine (Belson, 1984). However, it is acknowledged that the pursuit of validity, a stalwart of psychological methodology, has become less prominent in sociological research. Considerations of validity (which rely upon an objective referent to be found out there in the social

2012
world and henceforth compared to research claims) have begun to give way to considerations such as rigour, which are argued to better account for the essential subjectivity of qualitative data garnered from participant responses in social research (Flick, 1998). The debate surrounding validity and rigour continues in the social sciences (see, Denzin, 2009, Morse et al., 2002) . However, the question of how to best formulate an empirically grounded understanding of spirituality remains crucial, this will be explored in Chapter 1. To critically assess Hill et al.s (2000) simultaneous call for improved operationalization, it is pertinent to consider the underlying methodology of operationism. Operationism is an approach wherein a definition (known in psychological parlance as an operational definition) of a phenomenon is formulated purely in terms of how that phenomenon is considered to function. As such, operationally defining refers to making discrete the purported workings of a given phenomenon, so that these manifestations may be observed, measured, explained and understood. Whilst it has been highlighted that operational definitions were never intended to be philosophically substantive characterisations of a given phenomenon, it remains that psychological researchers often rely on operational definitions as the sole means of identifying a given referent (Feest, 2005). There is a limited cogence to be found in the practice of operational definition. This can be demonstrated insofar as if one is to observe and/or measure the operations of a phenomenon; it follows that these operations should be clearly identified by the researcher. However, it is not possible to determine the operations of spirituality (what spirituality does) without an understanding of the underlying concept (what spirituality is). If it is accepted that spirituality is insufficiently

2012
conceptualised, then operationist approaches are necessarily premature in the social scientific literature on spirituality. In fact, it has been argued by sociologist Paul Heelas (2008) that spirituality is immaterial, a phenomenon that cannot be directly observed, let alone measured with a given scientific instrument. This claim will be further explored in Chapter 1, but if it holds, provides a strong argument against employing operationism within investigations of spirituality. It is noted that there has been a larger shift away from operationism in sociological research a reflection of hesitancy to employ objectivist approaches to the oft-subjective nature of social phenomena (Outhwaite, 2010). Sociology, Spirituality, Ambiguity and Non-Definition Despite psychologists problematic calls for operationalization, the assertion that spirituality is insufficiently defined retains pertinence. Sociologist Matthew Wood (2010) explored a number of sociological approaches to defining spirituality. As with Hill et al. (2000), spirituality is held by Wood (2010) to be a term currently used in social-scientific discourse in various disparate ways. This use of multiple, differing definitions of spirituality engenders semantic ambiguity. However, Wood (2010) further argues that individual conceptualisations of spirituality are themselves unclear. Indeed, the definitions cited by Wood (2010) do not allow for clear identification of spirituality due to a lack of examples and the use of indefinite language and/or tautology. For example, McGuire (2008, cited in Wood 2010) used the following statement in her definition of spirituality: Spirituality might be used to refer to patterns of spiritual practices and experiences that comprise individual religion-aslived (p. 268). Here, the qualifier might does not provide any definitive

2012
conceptual boundary. Furthermore, the use of the adjective spiritual to describe practices and experiences related to spirituality constitutes a tautology, violating the logical precept of explanation that the explanans (explanation) must not contain the explanandum (the term/phenomenon being explained, see, Hempel and Oppenheim, 1948). Finally, the religion-as-lived construct does not provide any direct or indirect elucidation of spirituality as a concept (Hall, 1997). Accordingly, this description of spirituality is rendered vacuous, with the possible exception of the reference to Halls (1997) religion-as-lived concept, which is not justified by the author. Ambiguity in definition poses a significant conceptual problem. If defining a phenomenon is intended to be an act of clarification ("Definition.", n.d.), then an ambiguous definition is antithetical, a contradiction in terms. Such a statement may be described as a non-definition. In another recent example, Barker (2008) employed Weberian Ideal Types, arranging prototypical ideals of purported spiritual positions and contrasting these with religious positions. In her analysis, Barker (2008) asserts various possible relationships between religion and spirituality. However, Ideal Types are prototypes developed to represent common features of a given phenomenon (Weber, 1997). Whilst spiritual positions on individual topics are asserted and a dichotomy is engendered between spirituality and religion; spirituality and religion are not defined in Barkers (2008) work. It is noted that Barkers (2008) article also explored the European RAMP study, a large-scale research effort conducted across 11 countries, with 1466 participants in the British portion of the questionnaire. According to Barker (2008), the findings of the study suggested that spirituality was understood differently by different participants. This may go some

2012
way to explaining the absence of a definition of spirituality, due to difficulty in formulating a single representative definition. Barker (2008) further states that the robust, large scale RAMP study was limited in yielding data relating to participants understandings of the nature of spirituality due to her colleagues discomfort with qualitative methods. Barkers (2008) research colleagues voiced concerns that spirituality had not been satisfactorily operationalised and we did not really know what it had meant to the respondents (p.193). The problem of operationism in this context has been explored within this review, however, it is noteworthy that these authors (excluding Barker) expressed discomfort with qualitative methodology, then expressing that participants understandings of spirituality were poorly understood after the data was collected (Barker, 2008). After all, it would be difficult to design a quantitative survey that could capture the nuances of each participants understanding of a given concept. However, it remains that without a clear understanding of what spirituality and religion are; it is not possible to identify and demonstrate any proposed relationship between the two concepts. This problem of premature speculation on relations between as-yet indeterminate concepts (whilst not presenting an unclear conceptualisation of spirituality as a definition), exposes the problem of describing trends concerning undefined phenomena. Instead of asserting a non-definition, definition has been neglected. Empirical Approaches The Neglect of Definition The neglect of definition is not limited to analysis of the relations between spirituality and other concepts however. One empirical study of spirituality, conducted by widely cited sociologists of religion Heelas and Woodhead (2005)

2012
considered spirituality in the English constituency of Kendal. Heelas and Woodhead (2005) sought to investigate the hypothesis that there has been a contemporary Western shift away from 'life-as religion' (where religion is practiced as a role assumed by adherents that is given precedence before individual experience) towards subjective-life spirituality (where spirituality is approached by primarily concerning the individual's lived experience in relation to other things). The authors conducted their research using mixed methods (including qualitative, quantitative, archival and longitudinal approaches), with participants sampled from various religious and spiritual milieus. The religious populations considered represented a variety of traditions, including Christian, Christadelphian, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness and other congregations (Heelas and Woodhead, 2005). Participants from the spiritual populations sampled represented diverse traditions as well, including a number of groups associated with alternative medicine and selfhelp approaches, amongst other non-therapeutic groups (Heelas and Woodhead, 2005). With high response rates (252 of the 600 total members of the spiritual populations participating and similar rates for the religious populations) Heelas and Woodheads (2005) data holds considerable extrapolative potential, as well as considerable empirical knowledge with regard to these populations. However, Heelas and Woodheads (2005) research did not identify how the sample populations were determined to be spiritual or religious. Furthermore, whilst the analysis was to consider life-as religion and subjective-life spirituality, both spirituality and religion were not defined throughout the entire report (Heelas and Woodhead, 2005). The responses gathered may remain pertinent to social scientific

2012
inquiry into spirituality and religion. However, the same concern previously highlighted in Barkers (2008) research is present here. Where spirituality and religion are not clearly identified, it is not possible to determine the accuracy of the authors findings, including the claim that there has been a spiritual revolution a departure from religion and a turn to spirituality (Heelas and Woodhead, 2005). The consequences of these undefined central concepts are not limited to the spiritual revolution claim however. Within the study, both the life-as and subjective-life constructs are purported to be ways in which individuals can approach both spiritual and religious expression (Heelas and Woodhead, 2005). Whilst these constructs may indeed prove pertinent and novel ways of considering religion and spirituality in practice spirituality and religion remain indeterminate, so it is not possible to ascertain the relevance of the life-as and subjective-life constructs to these phenomena. Whilst it is a robust, empirically grounded study, Heelas and Woodheads (2005) hypothesis and associated findings can be asserted to be premature. Again, until spirituality is clearly conceptualised, able to be identified and henceforth observed/described, it is necessarily impossible to identify such trends with regard to spirituality. However, Heelas and Woodheads (2005) research reveals a philosophical problem: How does one identify spiritual research participants? How could Heelas and Woodhead (2005) determine the religiosity/spirituality of individuals if these concepts are themselves unclear? This remains an elementary problem for empirical investigation into the nature of spirituality, which will be further explored in the following chapter. It should also be noted that Heelas and Woodheads (2005) study

2012
is a larger volume than can be unpacked within this introductory chapter and will accordingly be subjected to further analysis in Chapter 1. Spirituality-in-Relation and Cultural Considerations This review has acknowledged efforts to understand how spirituality operates, without clearly understanding what spirituality is. The problematic nature of this approach has been highlighted. However, earlier in this discussion, it was highlighted that when defining spirituality, it is essential that any definition describe the phenomenon in accordance with those individuals/populations that identify themselves within it. In this way, the construct can claim to describe the phenomenon that has piqued the interest of social scientists; namely the tendency for increasing numbers of individuals within various contexts to describe themselves as spiritual in recent decades (Holmes, 2007, Tacey, 2004). In their review of research into spirituality, Hill et al. (2000) assert a potential pitfall in attempts to conceptualise spirituality; that any single definition is likely to reflect a limited perspective or interest (p. 52). This is an assertion that merits consideration, in light of one empirical attempt at conceptualising spirituality, according to spiritually-identifying individuals. Psychologists Zinnbauer et al. (1997) sought to measure how individuals define their own religiousness and spirituality (p. 549). The authors refined a series of predictor variables; indicators whose presence in a given individual may be useful in predicting whether the given individual will identify as spiritual and religious, or spiritual but not religious (Zinnbauer et al., 1997). A correlational study was conducted with which to test the usefulness of these predictors (Zinnbauer et al., 1997).

2012
The authors sampled 346 participants from 11 populations, including five different Christian congregations (Presbyterian, Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran and Unitarian) as well as one Christian university, a state university, a sample of several new age groups, a group of nursing home residents and the faculty of a college of nursing (Zinnbauer et al., 1997). The authors did not attribute spirituality or religiousness to any of the constituent sample populations prior to the research having been conducted (these groups were only described as spiritual and/or religious insofar as they identified as such in their responses, Zinnbauer et al., 1997). This is noteworthy, given Heelas and Woodheads (2005) assignment of these labels to populations, without justification of these attributions. However, Hill et al.s (2000) warning of the likelihood of limited perspectives detracting from attempts to conceptualise spirituality retains pertinence with regard to Zinnbauer et al.s (1997) study. In order to appreciate this pertinence, the samples used in Zinnbauer et al.s (1997) research, as well as the survey items employed warrant consideration. Firstly, it is noted that 6 of the 11 populations sampled are explicitly Christian groups (Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Christianity is indeed a prevalent tradition in the studys American milieu and Christianity is often discussed in relation to religion and/or spirituality, so these groups are likely pertinent to understanding these concepts (Paloutzian and Park, 2005). Indeed, the other samples may have included individuals who subscribe to other religiously/spiritually-identified traditions (such as Hinduism, Paloutzian & Park 2005). However, the research was a largely quantitative approach, using a survey whose items preclude one foundational belief, widely understood to be ubiquitous within Hinduism and present in other purportedly
10

2012
spiritual and/or religious traditions polytheism (the belief in more than one deity/god). Zinnbauer et al. (1997) employed a research methodology entailing one short open response item where participants wrote their definitions of spirituality and religion. The remainder of the study used quantitative survey items with set responses. One of these items was labelled Belief in God, Zinnbauer et al. (1997) allowed for respondents to indicate their Pantheism (defined as a belief that God is in everything), Theism (defined as belief in a personal God who is omnipotent, omnipresent and cares for/responds to human needs), Deism (defined as belief in a God who created but no longer acts upon the world), Agnosticism (defined as being unsure about what or who God is, that God is necessarily indeterminate) and Atheism (defined as disbelief in the existence of a God). This item did not allow respondents to indicate the belief in multiple deities (polytheism), and implicitly excludes the indication of any positive belief in the existence of multiple deities. Indeed, it is possible that spiritually-identifying individuals conceptions of one/multiple/indeterminate/non-existent deities may have been an as yet unidentified, but crucial aspect of their understanding of spirituality. However, in limiting responses and excluding identification with polytheism entirely from this response item, potentially integral information is placed outside the scope of the research. The research is accordingly limited in cross-cultural applicability insofar as the item does not allow for polytheistic cultural expressions. If polytheistic respondents were indeed included in the research (this is difficult to ascertain from the report, see, Zinnbauer et al. 1997), they may have not responded or may have provided
11

2012
inaccurate responses on this item due to the inability to indicate their beliefs accurately. It is also worth highlighting that Zinnbauer et al. (1997) have approached the conceptualisation of spirituality in relation to religion. Both are concepts that have been identified as inadequately understood by researchers (Hill et al., 2000). As such, asking respondents to define each term side-by-side as was done in Zinnbauer et al.s (1997) study may unwittingly lead participants to consider the concepts in relation to each other, which may influence the definitions provided. It is noted that it would be difficult to gauge the extent to which this may have occurred. Despite the aforementioned limitations of Zinnbauer et al.s (1997) study, there remains one potentially pertinent discovery. The authors noted that considerable discrepancy existed between different participants concepts of spirituality (Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Of the 93% of participants who identified themselves as spiritual, the most common feature of the definitions of spirituality provided by all participants was held by only 36% of participants that spirituality entails a feeling or experience of connectedness/relationship/oneness with God/Christ/Higher Power/transcendent reality/Nature/etc. (Zinnbauer et al., 1997, p.556). This aspect of the Zinnbauer et al. (1997) study appears to highlight that there may be little commensurability between spiritual individuals conceptions of spirituality. Future researchers may heed the warning here that spirituality may be a necessarily indeterminate phenomenon; understood by the spiritual in divergent, incompatible terms that cannot necessarily be reconciled within one universal definition. However, further research with broader samples and different populations would be necessitated justify and extrapolate any such claim.
12

2012
Conclusion As has been explored, several discrete missteps in methodology can be identified in currently available social-scientific exploration of spirituality. The practice of non-definition has led some researchers to overlook key conceptual considerations and proceed to attempt to explain spiritual trends, before it is clear what spirituality is and how it may be identified. Similarly, the neglect of definition of spirituality in other studies has contributed to the current indeterminacy of spirituality as a concept. Furthermore, this review has highlighted the importance of considering the potential for social researchers to overlook the cross-cultural nuances of spirituality, in using necessarily limiting quantitative methodologies by which to develop empirical understanding of the concept. Finally, care must be taken in future attempts to avoid influencing respondents explanations of spirituality by presenting questions that cause them to think of it in relation to religion or other concepts. It is crucial, in addressing the conceptualisation of spirituality according to the understandings of the spiritual, that definition is approached on the participants terms free from scholarly relational preconceptions. It has also been noted that in the absence of an understanding of spirituality, a problem arises in empirical inquiry how does one establish the spirituality of an individual or group? The present research will now turn to this and other fundamental questions of how to determine the nature of spirituality. Finally, it should be noted that whilst analysis of the plethora of scholarly investigation of spirituality would extend far beyond the scope of this literature review it remains acknowledged both within and between socialscientific disciplines that currently, spirituality is poorly understood in the social sciences (Barker, 2008, Heelas and Woodhead, 2005, Hill et al., 2000, Holmes, 2007,
13

2012
Possamai-Inesedy, 2009, Sessanna et al., 2007, Tacey, 2004, Wood, 2010, Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Having established the problems with current approaches, attention will be turned to how the proposed research will address the definition of spirituality.
14

2012
The Research Question

The introduction of this thesis explored the claims of various social researchers that spirituality is a phenomenon which merits investigation in the social sciences. Whilst it has been highlighted that some aspects of Heelas and Woodheads (2005) spiritual revolution claim would benefit from further exploration and/or clarification, it remains that there has been a marked recent increase in the number of individuals identifying with spirituality. However, it has also been acknowledged that what spirituality is remains an exposition yet to be satisfactorily provided in scholarly literature. Accordingly, the question the present research seeks to address is: What is spirituality? This thesis comprises a methodological inquiry, culminating in a small scale pilot study, attempting to develop further understanding of the nature of spirituality.
15

2012
Chapter One: Addressing the Spirituality Problem

How can Social Scientists Determine the Nature of Spirituality? It has been identified in the preceding analysis that there is ongoing debate as to how social researchers may best explore, determine and justify a given concept. However, whether one prefers quantitative or qualitative methods, whether one favours validity or rigour it is the view of this author that to determine how to go about understanding spirituality, one must revisit the most basic of questions: How do we know about spirituality? What could make spirituality pertinent to social scientists? Perhaps more elementarily: What is the role of the social scientist anyway? With regard to the first of these questions, we know about spirituality because increasing numbers of individuals around the world identify with and assert the importance of this phenomenon in their lives (Holmes, 2007). This has been a consistent research finding in the social sciences and beyond (see for example, Paloutzian and Park, 2005, Sessanna et al., 2007, Tacey, 2004). The second of these questions may be answered by considering the ramifications of spirituality in the social world, if indeed these can be found. For example, social movements may be found that invoke and designate importance to spirituality. Individuals may suggest that spirituality has a bearing on their social actions. On a more basic level, spiritual identification may influence, change or engender social formations, for example, the formation of institutions or influencing of a culture. Similarly, each of these propositions can be demonstrated by established research findings and readily available information from existing organisations. For example, Barker (2008) cites the president of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission in her
16

2012
analysis of spirituality. The Shri Ram Chandra Mission (2005) is a self-proclaimed spiritual organisation (p. 1) which has spread internationally from India, throughout Asia, Oceania, Africa, Europe, North and South America. This organisation promotes and hosts social gatherings, seminars and events concerned with meditation in various locations around the globe (Shri Ram Chandra Mission, 2005). It can be cogently inferred that this is an example of a social movement that does not only ascribe significance to, but is primarily concerned with spirituality. Another example can be found within Heelas and Woodheads (2005) study, 34% of respondents from the holistic sample described spirituality in terms of healing the self as well as others. Each of these responses represents an individual characterisation of spirituality that not only has bearing on social behaviour, given the unequivocally social nature of healing another person, but necessarily entails this social behaviour! From these examples, it is clear that spirituality can be understood to be a social phenomenon, with relevance to social researchers. However, having addressed these questions, it remains acknowledged that spirituality is not satisfactorily understood by social scientists. So what can social scientists do to develop a deeper understanding of spirituality? To answer this question, it is pertinent to consider the role of the social scientist. Webers Teachers On the Role of the Social Scientist In his writings on the scientific vocation, Max Weber (2004) asserted that social research is to be used to increase knowledge about social phenomena, rather than to prescribe modes of social order. Illustrating this, Weber (2004) used the analogy of the social-scientist as a teacher, and those who peruse research as
17

2012
students. According to Weber (2004), the teacher is tasked with facilitating students to identify information, which may stand contrary to their established opinions. Pertinently, for Weber (2004), it is not for the teacher (social scientist) to say which social action must be taken with regard to the information discovered, but simply to identify what is. But why shouldnt the social scientist, or teacher, use their scholarly pulpit to expound modes of social practice? Despite the many merits of Webers (2004) contributions to the social sciences, it would be an illogical appeal to authority to suggest that the above assertions are justified prima facie. However, such appeals need not be invoked to support Webers (2004) argument. Rather, in order to understand Webers (2004) position and its ramifications for understanding spirituality, it is pertinent to begin by examining the nature and limitations of scientific inquiry. What is Science? The ever-debated nature of the scientific endeavour retains a few aspects of relative consensus in scholarly discourse. Regardless of epistemological positions on the possibility of objectivity, there is comparative agreement that the recording of observations is an integral feature of scientific practice (see for examples, Shapere, 1982, Cohen, 2007, Machado and Silva, 2007). Where observations are replicable, descriptions of phenomena can be formed with intersubjective reliability (Cohen, 2007). Eventually, replicable and methodologically justified descriptions may facilitate explanatory theories (Cohen, 2007). From these theories, one may derive singular truth claims, called hypotheses (Cohen, 2007). Where hypotheses stand up
18

2012
to rigorous, repeated attempts at refutation, the hypotheses may be considered strongly supported (Cohen, 2007). A theory with many strongly supported hypotheses can allow scientists to provide exposition of a phenomenon, to more accurately predict its outcomes and in some cases even manipulate its operations/outcomes (Sarewitz and Pielke Jr, 1999). As such, one may cogently infer that science is a tool of description. However, is there room for the social scientist to move from description (what is) to prescription (of what ought to be)? An answer to this question can be found by considering the earlier work of one prominent philosopher of science. It is noted that due to the nature of social phenomena, social researchers can be required to look beyond the above described hypothetico-deductive approach. For example, when research pertains to qualitative accounts of subjective or immaterial phenomenon which are by nature irrefutable, a researcher necessarily cannot employ this methodology. However, even in such a case where the subject of research is not amenable to the hypothetico-deductive model, it can still be cogently argued that such inquiry must remain a descriptive endeavour. Humes Guillotine Almost two centuries before Webers (2004) treatise on the social researcher as a teacher of social science knowledge, philosopher of science David Hume considered this question (Hume and Raynor, 2001). Hume highlighted that he had yet to encounter a moral code that did not connect observations of human activity with assertions of how such activities ought to be undertaken (Hume and Raynor, 2001). However, throughout his treatise, Hume could not find a way to logically
19

2012
reconcile such derivation of prescription (an ought) from description (an is) (Hume and Raynor, 2001). Hume resolved that it does not follow that because something is a certain way, that this suggests how that thing ought to be addressed (Hume and Raynor, 2001). Indeed, this can be justified by the inference that without an interceding set of pre-determined value judgments, there would be no reason to suggest any such prescription based purely on description. Accordingly, Hume held that there is a dichotomy between is and ought statements (Hume and Raynor, 2001). This severance of the prescriptive from the descriptive came to be known as Humes guillotine (Gronbeck, 1968). Accordingly, if science is an exercise of observation and description and it is not possible to derive prescription from description, then there is no scientific basis to venture into the prescriptive. This syllogism vindicates Webers (2004) warning against straying from description of social phenomena to prescription of social organization. This understanding carries two pertinent caveats for determining the means by which social scientists may enrich their understanding of spirituality. Firstly, typological approaches, where the social scientist determines their own understanding of spirituality and assigns the category of spirituality or nonspirituality to social phenomena is necessarily beyond the scope of social scientific inquiry. A social scientist can only describe spirituality. To prescribe what should and should not to be considered spiritual represents a value judgement, not a description. In essence, the social researcher is not the arbiter of spirituality. However, Heelas (2008) has warned that spirituality may not be directly scientifically described. If this is true, then how may the social scientist determine
20

2012
the nature of spirituality? The answer is indirectly, through those who identify with spirituality. In the absence of a directly observable referent, a researchers conception of spirituality can only demonstrate its aptitude insofar as it reflects the understandings of those who assert spirituality. As has been earlier explored, that researchers have any conception of spirituality at all owes to assertions of its existence by individuals within the social world. Attempts at describing understandings of spirituality through those who identify with it have been considered in the preceding analysis. In Barkers (2008) case, her peers reliance on quantitative methods and aversion to presenting an item regarding spirituality that does not itself operationalize the concept was unable to provide even superficial exposition of participants understandings of the concept. It is noted that Barker (2008) acknowledges this in her discussion. In the case of Heelas and Woodhead (2005), qualitative and quantitative data were gathered from participants, the analysis of which provides some discussion of spirituality in relation to this data. However, the focus of this study was not to conceptualise spirituality, but rather to explore the hypothesis that there has been a shift from life-as religion to subjective-life spirituality (Heelas and Woodhead, 2005). To address the lack of conceptualisation of spirituality in the social sciences, Chapter Two details the methods used in this study in order to answer the research question: What is spirituality?
21

2012
Chapter Two: Field Work Methodology

The preceding analysis identifies the merits of a scholarly conception of spirituality which accurately represents the understandings of those who identify with and assert the phenomenon. Whilst existing studies have been identified using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to gather data from participant samples regarding spirituality, none of the abovementioned studies has been conducted for the purpose of conceptualising spirituality. Accordingly, it was determined that new field work should be conducted for the present research. Due to the limited timeframe of the honours program a pilot study approach was adopted, using qualitative interviews with individuals who identify with and assert spirituality. This approach was employed due to the increased aptitude of qualitative accounts in capturing the nuances of participants understandings compared to quantitative, survey based counterparts. This is not to suggest that quantitative research shall have no place in uncovering knowledge about spirituality. However, in order to accurately reflect participants understandings, it is crucial that participants are free to describe their views in as much detail as can be provided. This relies on the participant being free of the constraints of quantitative scales or predetermined survey response options. It is noted that the pilot study is intended to be replicated with broader samples across differing cultural, geographical and linguistic milieu, to ensure formulation of a conceptualisation with extrapolative and cross-cultural applicability. As such, the present research marks the beginning of a considerably larger research undertaking. Similarly, this pilot study employed semi-structured interviews, due to the tendency of past research to indicate that understandings of spirituality vary widely
22

2012
in content between individuals (Barker, 2008, Heelas, 2008). The semi-structured approach allowed for participants to address spirituality in their own terms, with questions adapted to the content of the account given. This allows for responses to remain free of the limitations of a more structured schedule. A limited number of open-response questions that imply as little as possible about spirituality were required in order to ensure that no leading questions were asked of the participant, and that no preconceptions of the interviewer would influence the participants responses. The interview schedule has been provided as Appendix A. Interviews lasted a period of between 30-50 minutes each. Interviews were audio recorded either in person, or over Skype, an internet based video conference service. Face to face interviews were conducted in a private context, with only the interviewer (principle researcher) and participant present. Similarly, Skype interviews were conducted in the same conditions, with participants instructed to ensure that there were in a quiet, private location with no other individuals present. Participants The interview portion of this study was conducted with the assistance of respondents sampled from two self-identified spiritual populations. Three participants were sampled from each population, comprising a total of six interview respondents (N = 6). This number was determined to be appropriate due to exploratory nature of the project as a pilot study, serving as the basis for the development of a larger scale project in the future. Respondents were recruited through purposive sampling, the sole sampling criterion being that the participant identifies with spirituality.
23

2012
The Australian Christian Churches Sample The first sample was drawn from the Australian Christian Churches (ACC) movement. Formerly known as the Assemblies of God, the ACC movement is a Pentecostal Christian denomination. Whilst variously recognised as a religious or spiritual movement, or indeed both, ACC members clearly cite the spiritual aspects of their movement. For example, in the ACC formal statement of beliefs, reference is made to the use of spiritual gifts, including speaking in tongues, which is the initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit (Australian Christian Churches, 2012a, p.1). The ACC is an internationally known Australian movement, purporting that with over 250,000 members, it is the largest of its kind (Australian Christian Churches, 2012b). Access to the ACC sample population was provided with the cooperation of some members of clergy within the organisation, with initial telephone contact established with the organisation prior to the sampling process. Participants were sampled from three different ACC churches from different regions of Greater Sydney. These churches will not be identified within this thesis in order to ensure participant confidentiality (some ACC congregations can be quite small and explication of source congregations, provided with participant responses may be used to determine participant identity). Introducing the ACC Sample Respondents The ACC sample included Sophie, a theologically trained ordained minister, Natalia, an events manager, former youth leader and continuing congregant (with no formal theological education) and Peter, a musician and regularly attending congregant (with no formal theological education) and an ongoing role as a musical
24

2012
performer at his church. Accordingly, the sample comprised one male and two female respondents. The age of these participants varied from 20-40 years. The Mind Body Spirit Sample The second sample was selected from the diverse, eclectic groups, movements and individuals present at the 2012 Mind Body Spirit Festival, held in Sydney, Australia from May 3-6, 2012. Due to the heterogeneity of eclectic spiritual expressions (see, Paloutzian and Park, 2005), this sample was selected to provide additional diversity in understandings to the small samples used within this pilot study. Individuals were sampled from the Mind Body Spirit 2012 event, approached by the principal researcher of this project in person and provided with information sheets detailing the nature of the study (provided at Appendix B). Participants were sampled over the full course of the event. Introducing the MBS Sample Respondents The MBS sample comprised of William, a tradesman, Juanita, a marketing manager and former organiser at prior Mind Body Spirit events and Sarah, a nurse. Coincidentally, this sample also consisted of one male and two females. The ages of these participants were of a narrower range than the ACC sample, between 18-30 years. It should be noted that in order to protect the identities of respondents, pseudonyms have been employed where reference is made to individual participants.
25

2012
Analysis After all of the interviews were completed, each interview was entered into QSRs NVIVO 10 software package, which was used to facilitate transcription of interviews and subsequent data analysis. Each interview was transcribed verbatim. Word frequency queries were employed to identify the terms most often utilised by participants in their respective expositions of spirituality. Thematic analysis was subsequently conducted using interview transcripts, first using individual interviews to identify prominent themes within individual accounts. Subsequently, thematic analysis was undertaken using all responses within samples and between samples, with a view to identifying the level of commensurability of accounts within and between groups. Thematic analysis was undertaken because this approach provides a well-established means by which to consider the content and nature of qualitative data. This methodology allows for deep exploration of individual responses, as well as identification of consistencies and contrasts between different responses. Since the field work was focused on understanding respondents conceptualisations of spirituality, this approach was considered appropriate.
26

2012
Chapter Three: Field Work Findings

What is Spirituality? The primary concern of the present research is the conceptualisation of spirituality according to those who identify as spiritual. As such, the first theme considered is spirituality. More precisely, how does each respondent conceive of spirituality? Given the previously acknowledged heterogeneity of spiritual expressions (Heelas, 2008), coupled with the small number of respondents, the decision was taken to provide deep coverage of participant accounts. Not only does this approach allow for the opportunity for further comparisons and contrasts to be drawn from participant accounts, this also provides participants with a voice in the literature which is seldom afforded to interview respondents. The MBS sample respondents each provided different conceptions of spirituality, intimating various roles of spirituality in their lives. William explains that he came to identify with spirituality within the context of major life stresses:
It was a series of things that sort of happened. I worked as a tow-truck driver, and been to a few serious accidents and that sort of thing. It was you know, after a hard day at work and that sort of thing, it was more just helping me relax and um deal with what was going on.
William then explained what he perceived as the shortcomings of conventional approaches to these problems. It was this that led him to spirituality as an alternative:
[T]raditional ways of thinking aren't always 100%, like, I've found that you know, instead of, like if I've had a hard day at work, like if I have a bad back or something like that. Instead of going home and saying I'll take a neurofen and maybe some alcohol, something like that... just taking some time to relax and meditate. That sort of thing. Just say ok, take that time to relax. Think about what's causing that pain, maybe do some stretches, and um, just be at one. Just try and let all that stress go and meditate.
27

2012
Here, it becomes clear that for William, spirituality is a practical approach to dealing with both physical and mental stressors. William further explained that spirituality entails paying close attention to your body and your mind; this reflects Williams cumulative, experiential conception of spirituality outlined in the following statement:
I guess that's a good definition of spirituality anyway, it's not so much direct, it's how things happen and um, how people take things gradually along the way and deal with it.
William further highlights that there are some practices that are themselves spiritual, for example; meditation, relaxation and massage. William also outlines that some things are not spiritual, for example, drinking alcohol. However, William clarifies that practices that are not spiritual like drinking may affect ones mindset and as such take on a peripheral spiritual consequence demonstrating that those things that arent spiritual would still affect you spiritually. William has a reflexive understanding of spirituality, recognising that the experiential nature of spirituality and the diversity of individual experiences dictate that spirituality may only be defined in broad terms. Whilst William notes with regard to defining spirituality, that he had not thought too much about it, William has provided insight into his practical understanding of spirituality nonetheless. Sarah, another MBS sample respondent, provided her account of spirituality:
I think it is almost bigger than human understanding, in a way. By putting a word to it or giving it a specific construct, you are making it too small. If that makes sense? The human part of me wants to understand it but, the spiritual part of me knows there's not a way of understanding it fully.
Sarah explains that whilst there was very little she can verbalise about spirituality, that an essential characteristic of spirituality was the interconnectedness of all things.
28

2012
Sarah further explains that By everything being connected, everything is important, but nothing is overly important. Sarah further highlighted that the spiritual whole entails the simultaneous insignificance and significance of its parts: things arent themselves important, but are really important as the intricacies of the whole. This universal account of spirituality entails that everything has an impact and role in spirituality. Further elucidating the universality of spirituality, Sarah states that any life experience could be classed as a spiritual experience. This stands in contrast to Williams demarcation of spiritual and non-spiritual experiences. However, Sarahs statement is not entirely dissimilar from Williams account, insofar as Williams conception allows for non-spiritual things to yield a spiritual influence. Furthermore, Sarahs central role of experience within spirituality is echoed in Williams description of spirituality as how people take things gradually along the way and deal with it. In conclusion, Sarah explains that spirituality can be a spontaneous and unexpected phenomenon:
[E]verything has the potential to be spiritually significant. Like going on a big pilgrimage, people may find that the most important thing on that trip was scrubbing the floors in a temple [] you know, sometimes we have the most spiritual experiences when we don't think it's a spiritual moment.
For Sarah, spirituality is universal, elusive, unknowable and difficult to put into words. Sarah was unable to describe spirituality itself in more detail due to her understanding of spirituality as largely beyond human comprehension. However, she did describe what she perceived as necessarily limited attempts that other individuals make with regard to spirituality. These are explored in the following sections of thematic analyses.
29

2012
The final MBS participant, Juanita also explained her view of spirituality in broad terms:
I think it's so different for everyone. But I think for me, it would be a belief or an understanding that, um, there is much more than just this world that we're living in, there are other, you know, divine forces I suppose.
For Juanita, spirituality is something beyond the world that human beings are familiar with. When asked to explain the nature of divine forces, Juanita states that when youre spiritual, youre believing in a greater force that has power, [] youre believing in I suppose a life and maybe a higher existence. This was further explained by Juanita as a different kind of power that exists outside of the natural. Juanita did not provide further explanation of the nature of this power. Like William, Juanita also described practical applications of spirituality in healing of a physical and mental nature, summarised by Juanita as a whole being kind of thing. These healing practices extended beyond mediation and relaxation, also including angel healing, clairvoyance, the use of mediums and Reiki. Whilst Angel healing in particular held personal significance for Juanita, as this was her introduction to spirituality, it should be noted that Juanita did not claim that any of these practices are essential features of spirituality. This is consistent with her aforementioned view that spirituality is diverse, understood differently by different people. One of the ACC sample respondents, Peter summarised his personal view of spirituality as the behind the scenes of Gods workings. Peter followed this statement by acknowledging that this behind the scenes spirituality is also understood by people who do not believe in God. Peter clarifies:
30

2012
I believe that when people say they're spiritual but they don't believe in God, I believe that. I know it to be true, you don't have to believe in a deity to feel something happen. If someone comes to a conclusion that there's no deity, after investigating the behind the scenes and everything, then that's their conclusion, who am I to say that they're wrong - because I justify my spirituality differently, through my own experiences and own knowledge.
This account also clearly demonstrates Peters explanation that spirituality is subjectively understood through the individual lens of experience and knowledge: the way you see things, hear things, you know, that is unique to the person. Again, this experiential aspect of spirituality is commensurate with the assertions of MBS participants William and Sarah. However, Peters account asserts an objective aspect of spirituality not found within William and Sarahs understandings, as Peter holds that spirituality is extant independently of individual belief. When asked about those who do not identify as spiritual, he explains: it doesn't mean that there isn't stuff happening around them, but they might not tap into it. Peter provides further description of spirituality as something that you cant see, but you can feel with good and bad implications. Peter provided the example of excessive co-dependency (defined as where people cant survive without each other) in interpersonal relationships as one such source of negative spiritual consequences. He highlights that a truly honest person would have that in mind, the fact that they are affected by both sides. Peter further outlined the manifestations of spirituality, explicating that both the mundane and the miraculous may have underlying spiritual causes. However, he cautioned that one should avoid hasty spiritual attributions to observed outcomes. According to Peter, only after exhaustive research on something and you can't find an end to it, but you know there's something, you almost feel that there's something
31

2012
different should one consider a spiritual antecedent. Finally, Peter stresses that spirituality is something that we just cannot fathom. Whilst this statement, in isolation is consistent with Sarahs suggestion that spirituality is beyond human understanding, Peter explains: it remains to be seen whether we could understand it later or whether we could never understand it. I guess the test of time tells that. In her response, fellow ACC respondent Sophie emphasised that a relationship with God is central to her understanding of spirituality and that this relationship could be maintained by practicing spiritual disciplines. These disciplines include prayer, reading the bible, having faith and being open to God. Sophie clarifies that these disciplines are tools:
I think they are tools, I think that you can find spirituality in them, I suppose prayer in itself, you could say that's spiritual. But in reading the word, it's just like reading a book. I could read a book and not get anything out of it. I suppose bringing that spirituality into it, believing that God's going to speak to you through it, having faith that it is the word of God. I think that spirituality - they're tools that you can use with the right heart and the right faith, spirituality then kind of connects to it!
Sophie held that it is a fact of life that there will be others who identify as spiritual but do not hold to her understanding of spirituality which is admittedly wrapped up in Christianity. In saying this, Sophie does explicitly acknowledge the sincerity of some non-Christian individuals claims to spirituality. She provides the example of Buddhists still being able to kind of know and have that relationship with God, which is the pivotal thing for spirituality. Sophie finally explains that there is a spiritual aspect to everyone that only comes from the fact that God created them. For Sophie, this essential spirituality is present whether it is acknowledged by an individual or not. Sophies views with regard to other conceptions of spirituality are
32

2012
further unpacked in analysis of the next theme Does Religion Relate to Spirituality? It is noted that Sophies identification of an ever-present spirituality may be considered consistent with Peters account, as he asserts that spirituality exists outside of individual belief. However, Sophie asserts a spirituality which is located within individuals that may or may not be acknowledged, whereas Peter describes an external spirituality out there. The final ACC participant, Natalia highlights that the ACC had a special depth which has kept her there to the present, explaining depth in terms of the ACC preaching a relevant word to her every day experience. Natalia asserts that humans by nature are spiritual beings and that individual responses to experience can mitigate positive or negative spiritual consequences. Natalia provides an example to illustrate this claim:
[W]e can go through the motions, the spiritual realm, feeling bad, feeling sad, going to bars and clubs or getting hurt by someone or hurting someone else, or whatever. The experiences that we have chip away sometimes. Or we can go to God and with his love, we can change our chips and our hurts and our bumps. But on the outside, we're just a normal human being, but inside our spiritual realm, we walk in love.
Natalia explains that spirituality is a conviction, what you feel, what youre drawn to. She further asserts that love is a central aspect of spirituality throughout her account, alongside God, highlighting that God is love to illustrate the centrality of these concepts within spirituality. The centrality of God in Natalias account is further explored in the subsequent analysis Spirituality: Whats God Got to do with it? However, it should be noted here that Natalia concedes that different understandings of spirituality exist and that she does not presume to hold the only accurate understanding of spirituality.
33

2012
Natalias assertion of a spiritual essence of all humanity is consistent with Sophies assertion of an innate spiritual aspect of all people. However, Natalia stops short of explicitly attributing this innate spirituality as a product of Gods creation of mankind. What is Spirituality? Conclusions It should be noted that the descriptions outlined above are portions of the participants accounts on spirituality. Other aspects of these accounts are further considered in subsequent thematic analyses. However, with this overview of respondents understandings of spirituality, some commonalities and points of departure have been identified. The universality of human spirituality was the most consistent assertion within and between samples. Natalia (ACC), Sophie (ACC) and Sarah (MBS) each hold that all humans have a spiritual aspect. However, as has been highlighted, Sarah goes further within her account, claiming that furthermore; animals, plants and indeed everything has spiritual properties. Furthermore, when William (MBS) was asked to clarify whether he believed that every person has a spiritual aspect, he responded yes. Juanita (MBS) did not explicitly or implicitly assert that all humans are spiritual beings. However, it should be noted that Juanita (MBS) provided no information with which to cogently infer disagreement with this assertion. Peter (ACC) does not explicitly purport this essential spirituality of humanity. However, he does assert that spirituality exists outside of individuals and whilst they may not acknowledge this, it may still influence their experiences nonetheless.
34

2012
Peters (ACC) claim merits further consideration. Spirituality has been frequently discussed in scholarly literature as a subjective, inner aspect of individuals (Hill et al., 2000, Heelas and Woodhead, 2005). However, Peters understanding of spirituality clearly runs contrary to this assertion. For Peter, spirituality is an external reality that remains constant regardless of human subjectivities. This finding serves as a reminder to researchers that understandings of spirituality are considerably heterogeneous, more so than has been already recognised. With this preliminary analysis of responses, the present research will turn to other salient themes observed in participant responses. Does Religion Relate to Spirituality? As has been identified in this study, relationships between religion and spirituality have both been considered and asserted by researchers (Barker, 2008, Heelas and Woodhead, 2005). One example of such implication of religion in relation to spirituality can be observed in the work of Bruce (2002), where New Age spirituality is asserted as a self-religion. Bruce (2002) credits Heelas with coining the term self-religions to refer to central aspects of New Age spirituality. Barker (1999) can also be observed describing individuals identifying with New Age spirituality as happily hopping from one self-religion to another (p. 17). These particular assertions carry significant weight in the context of this section, which considers the beliefs of individuals sampled from an event (the Mind Body Spirit Festival) where these New Age systems feature prominently. Furthermore, Bruce (2002) directly cites the UK Mind Body Spirit festival as exemplifying his suggestion that the growth of the New Age is impressive (p. 80). This quote bolsters the pertinence of Bruces (2002) claims, as the present study was conducted
35

2012
with respondents from the Sydney Mind Body Spirit festival. The merits of Bruce (2002) and Barkers (1999) assertions of the self-religiosity of New Age spirituality will be considered in light of these participants accounts in the section Does Religion Relate to Spirituality? In order to avoid the implication of any relationship between religion and spirituality, the present research employed an interview schedule designed to elicit accounts of spirituality whilst making no reference to, or implication of religion as a concept of pertinence. However, this did not lead to a lack of reference to religion in participant responses. In fact, all six participants made unsolicited references to religion. The frequency of individual usages of the term is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1. Frequency of References to Religion

Participant (Sample Group) William (MBS) Juanita (MBS) Sarah (MBS) Peter (ACC) Sophia (ACC) Natalia (ACC) Number of references to religion 2 1 13 4 14 6
Note: This table illustrates the number of times religion (or a variation of the word) was mentioned by each respondent.
It should be noted that this ubiquitous reference to religion in individual accounts should not be held to indicate homogeneity of views of religion with regard to spirituality. In fact, when considered in context, some participants asserted little in
36

2012
terms of a relationship between religion and spirituality. William made use of the term once in order to illustrate his assertion that spirituality may be understood in many different ways, as there are many different individual world views:
[] everyone's different, and I definitely think it would be different things for different people and I guess, just looking at different cultures and that sort of thing, different religions Um, they've all got their point of view. Everyone's got a different point of view on everything. So I think that, I don't think there's only one way of defining it [spirituality], and it would be very broad.
William used the term once more in his response, highlighting that I never really identified myself as spiritual, wait not spiritual, religious! Here William conflates religious and spiritual identity, but quickly corrects himself. Whilst one may use this to infer that William has an unspoken belief that religion and spirituality have some commensurability, hence the momentary conflation no further information was provided in Williams account to support such a claim. Regardless, William does explicate a role of religion alongside culture as a potential influence upon individual conceptions of spirituality. During her interview participation, Juanita described spirituality as more than just the world were living in, there are other, you know, divine forces. When asked to explain these divine forces, Juanita made her sole reference to religion:
It would be I suppose the force of God, really. I mean, I don't know, but I don't think that you necessarily have to believe in God to be spiritual. I know a lot of people think... There's two schools of thought on that. But I don't associate spirituality to be necessarily directly correlated with being religious; I think that they're very separate things. But I think that when you're spiritual, you're believing in a greater force, that has, um power, and um, it's probably you're believing in I suppose a life and maybe a higher existence?
37

2012
Here, Juanita clearly states that religion and spirituality are distinct concepts. However, Juanita asserts that divine forces, one aspect of her understanding of spirituality, may be understood as the force of God. She also asserts that belief in God is not necessary to being spiritual in her view, but that different views exist on this topic. This is followed by the comment that spirituality is not necessarily correlated with religiosity. Considered in isolation, this may be taken to imply that Juanita understands belief in God to indicate religiosity. However, Juanita stated prior to her interview that she does not consider herself religious. As is explored further in subsequent analysis, Juanita has a belief in not just one God, but various deities. Indeed, Juanitas conception of religiosity cannot be deduced, nor can one be cogently inferred from the content of this interview. What is clear is that for Juanita, religiosity and spirituality are discrete phenomena; which do not always manifest together, although this is not ruled out. It is noted here that further questioning of participants with regard to their view of religion was not entered into. This approach was taken by the interviewer in order to avoid posing any unintentionally leading questions in this regard, which may influence the remainder of the respective participant responses. As one may have inferred from the considerably more frequent reference to religion presented in Table 1, Sarah presents her view of religion with regard to spirituality with greater elaboration than her MBS sample peers:
I think that people think that religion is spirituality a lot of the time, because it feels to me like religion is a human attempt to connect to spirituality, but at the same time to make spirituality small enough for us to be able to grasp it. So where we can be able to explain something scientifically, religion for me is something that is a way to try and grasp something that I don't think is graspable.
38

2012
Sarah repeats her view that religion is a human attempt to understand spirituality (for her a phenomenon that applies not just to humans, but all living things) throughout the course of the interview. Sarah highlights her belief that religion is reductive, a means by which for human beings to place spirituality within the limitations of their own respective cognitive capacities. Sarah acknowledges that religion is [a] way of experiencing spirituality but is too restricted and small to encapsulate spirituality. For Sarah, it appears, religion exists primarily in relation to spirituality or more accurately, within spirituality as a limited attempt at understanding spirituality. This differs markedly from Juanitas understanding of religion and spirituality as distinct and separate. It should not be overlooked that Sarah prefaces her view of the reductive nature of religion with I think, that she acknowledges repeatedly throughout the interview that others may understand spirituality differently, further highlighting that I think there is a lot of spirituality in religion [] But I guess to me it does feel too restricted. It is apparent that William, Sarah and Juanitas responses each suggest an underlying awareness of the subjectivity of their understandings, drawn from an accompanying, tacit awareness that others may hold different views. Despite this similarity however, there is little commensurability between the MBS participants stated views of religion vis--vis spirituality. This statement should be qualified however, by the acknowledgement that the interviews were not focused on eliciting participants understandings of religion. Especially in Williams case, there was not enough data gathered to wholly rule out reconciling aspects of MBS respondents understandings of religion in relation to spirituality with one another.
39

2012
When considering ACC sample responses, the diversity of respondents understandings of religion with regard to spirituality became more apparent. An ACC minister, Sophie, drew a clear distinction between religion and spirituality:
[A]t the core of my spirituality is the belief that... like in Jesus Christ that he, you know, walked on the earth, died and rose again. That my faith is in him and yeah, that's probably the core of how I live my spiritual life. I suppose being spiritual for me is practicing spiritual disciplines; reading the word, praying, having um yeah just a good kind of connection with God I suppose. It's not necessarily religious, I don't like to think of it as being religious, more a relationship with God.
Sophie further detailed her understanding of religion:

I think of it [religion] as kind of a, its not empty, but it's more um routine, like you're just kind of going through the motions I suppose, but there's not really life, or any, I don't even know the word, excitement to it. It's just something that you do rather than someone who you are.
In the above quotes, Sophie highlights that for her, religion and spirituality are different phenomena. Whereas religion for Sophie entails a ritualistic adherence, spirituality is an intimate part of individual identity, entailing a personal relationship with God rather than ritualistic adherence. Sophie does however clarify that religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive: I think you can, even in that religious environment kind of know and have that relationship with God. I think that's probably the pivotal thing for spirituality. It is noteworthy that this statement was describing not just Christianity, but also Buddhism and other traditions that Sophie regards as religions. Here Sophie also reiterates that the relationship with God is a central part of spirituality. Whilst Sophie is clear that she regards her Christian beliefs as the centre of her spiritual experience, she highlights that spirituality can be found within different
40

2012
religious groups that do not hold to Christian beliefs. It can be asserted that Sophie has a similar appraisal of the relationship between religion and spirituality to Juanita (MBS), insofar as her view allows for the two to be expressed together, this will be further explored in the conclusion of this section. Sophie also explicitly acknowledges that her understanding of what constitutes religion is not the only view, expressing that her views are by no means more accurate than others. Whilst Sophie does not identify herself as religious, Natalia, another ACC sample respondent implies that she considers herself religious. This implicit identification is presented within the context of Natalias reference to a Muslim friend: hes Muslim and thats not the same religion as me. But me and him, we have that like spirit. Whilst Natalia implicitly identifies as religious and explicitly as spiritual, she also considers religion and spirituality to be separate concepts: Spirituality can be a whole different thing. Its definitely not religion [] definitely not religion at all. Natalia explains that she believes religion is a doctrine and that spirituality can be experienced whether youre a religious person or not, someone might not believe in God at all. It could be loosely inferred that that here Natalia implies that religion entails a belief in God, but her account does not provide enough information to strongly support this inference. The remaining ACC participant, Peter, also goes into some detail on his view of religion and spirituality:
I don't believe spirituality is confined to all of the denominations of Christianity as a religion. I would go as far to say that Buddhists, Hindus, most other religions feel something spiritually. Especially to have lasted as long as they have, people can only fake things for so long. That in itself is evidence that there is spirituality everywhere. Not just in Christianity, but for those who believe different things and those who choose to believe in nothing.
41

2012
Clearly for Peter, spirituality and religiosity can coexist. This is further demonstrated by the fact that when approached for recruitment to participate in this study, Peter identified himself as religious. Also noteworthy is that Peter allows for spirituality to exist in the absence of religiosity, further asserting that Those people who explore spirituality themselves are sometimes better off than those who are religiously accepting. So yeah, its interesting how its almost as if religion can be used almost as a poison to these things. Peter warns here that religiosity may lead to an out-ofhand acceptance of spirituality, as opposed to individual exploration of spirituality which he regards as beneficial. Peter does not provide his understanding of what religion is within his response. He also does not explicitly state that religion and spirituality are discrete entities. However, it can be inferred that for Peter, because one can be spiritual without religiosity, that the two are separate phenomena that can exist together, or spirituality can exist in the absence of religiosity. Does Religion Relate to Spirituality? - Conclusions On the whole, whilst each participant has referred to religion in the context of explaining their understanding of spirituality, their views on the relations between these concepts vary. Sarahs (MBS) account of religion existing primarily as a limited human attempt at understanding spirituality differs sharply from other responses collected that assert a separation of the concepts. William (MBS) holds that religion can influence an individuals world-view and hence individual understandings of spirituality. However William does not explain his understanding of religion in any further detail, and it is unclear whether he considers there to be any further relationship between spirituality and religion or whether he considers the two
42

2012
to be separate concepts. It is noted that each of the MBS sample respondents explicate that they do not identify as religious. Juanita (MBS), Sophie (ACC) and Natalia (ACC) each explicitly state that religion and spirituality are distinct concepts. Juanita asserts that spirituality and religion do not necessarily co-occur, but her conceptualisation implicitly allows for this possibility. Juanitas account explicitly allows for one to be spiritual without being religious, she herself identifies as such but whilst she does not negate the possibility of religiosity without spirituality, she does not explicitly assert this view either. In the same way, Natalia and Sophie both state that one can be religious and spiritual or be spiritual and not religious. However, both assert the essential spirituality of all humanity, which precludes the possibility of being religious and not spiritual. This is the most commensurability between individual accounts that was observed during analysis of this theme. Notable however is the agreement between Juanita, Sophie and Natalia on all of the potential individual arrangements of spiritual and/or religious identity. Furthermore, whilst Juanita does not assert that all humans are essentially spiritual, she does not deny this implicitly or explicitly throughout her entire response. Furthermore, Juanita does not outline her conceptualisation of religion. It is not possible to claim that Juanita (MBS) has the same understanding of religion as Sophie (ACC) and Natalia (ACC). Similarly, Natalia does not provide as much exposition of her conceptualisation of religion as Sophie does, it may be that all three of these participants have divergent understandings of religion, accordingly, the strength of the abovementioned commensurability would be lessened.
43

2012
Peters (ACC) views on spirituality vis--vis religion are similarly comparable to Sophie (ACC), Natalia (ACC) and Juanitas (MBS). Whilst Peter does not explicate the separation of spirituality and religion, he does assert that one can be spiritual without being religious. This allows for the inference that the two are distinct concepts, which may be related to one another. Indeed, there are a number of points of consensus between ACC sample respondents, considerably more so than between MBS participants. It is pertinent to heed one further assertion made by Sarah (MBS) during her response: people think that religion is spirituality a lot of the time. Indeed, this assertion can be demonstrated in some scholarly research through the interchangeable use of the terms by some academics (see for example, Timothy and Conover, 2006). This serves as a reminder to researchers: If we intend to accurately represent as many of the self-identified spiritual as possible when we discuss spirituality, we would do well to avoid conflating spirituality with religion. This does not do justice to the nuanced and varied understandings of the relations or lack thereof between these two concepts found within pertinent populations. Of the participants sampled from Mind Body Spirit, a prominent Australian New Age event, all three explicitly state that they do not identify with religion, at all. This data renders the earlier cited claims of Barker (1999) and Bruce (2002) that these individuals are practicing self-religions problematic. It is pertinent here to unpack Barkers (1999) and Bruces (2002) use of the term self-religion to refer to the New Age movement. It is noted that Barker (1999) does not define self-religion in her account of the New Age movement, nor does she credit this term to Heelas. However, whilst no reference was provided by
44

2012
Bruce (2002) when he credited Heelas with coining self-religion, perusal of Heelas research reveals that a number of his works published from 1982-1991 employed this term in relation to New Age movements. This terminology implies that the New Age movement has a relationship to religion, a claim that is unequivocally rejected by each of the MBS sample participants who contributed to the present research. However, it is pertinent to consider that the decade after coining self-religion, Heelas himself (1996) had begun using the term self-spirituality instead to describe the New Age movement. This text is included in Bruces (2002) reference list within his analysis (p. 255). Heelas (1996) defined self-spirituality (p. 18) as describing the essential lingua franca (p. 18) of the New Age movement that provides an appraisal of beliefs as a destructive obstacle to ones own actual experiences (p. 18). Despite Heelas (1996) new parlance, Bruce (2002) and Barker (1999) were not the only subsequent researchers to retain the earlier terminology. In fact, self-religion and self-spirituality have continued to be used interchangeably in scholarly discourse (see for example, Timothy and Conover, 2006). It is finally noted that whilst self-spirituality no longer carried the implied relationship between spirituality and religion, Heelas (2008) would later abandon the use of self-spirituality altogether. Heelas (2008) explained this change in terminology, acknowledging that self-spirituality inaccurately implies that these individuals are self-obsessed (p. 26). Heelas (2008) has henceforth taken to describing these eclectic spiritual expressions as inner-life spirituality (p. 26) or spiritualities of life (p. 26). Despite Heelas abandonment of self-religion and
45

2012
self-spirituality sociological works have continued to be published employing these terms interchangeably (see for example, Dyrendal, 2009). Spirituality: Whats God got to do with it? In the earlier literature review, it was highlighted that Zinnbauer et al. (1997) employed a methodology that sought to elicit the place of theism within the worldviews of their spiritual participants. It was further acknowledged that this study did not allow for polytheistic expressions to be indicated in the pertinent closed-response survey item (Zinnbauer et al., 1997). However, does the theme of belief in God or Gods hold relevance to spirituality at all? The present research has taken a counter-presumptive approach to exploring participants understandings of spirituality, insofar as the interview schedule has been specifically crafted so as not to imply a preconceived relevance or irrelevance of a given concept (such as deities) to spirituality. It is pertinent then to acknowledge that analysis flagged God as one of the most frequently occurring words across interviews from both samples. In fact, behind spiritual and spirituality, God was the third most frequently occurring word across all interviews from both samples. As such, the final theme considered within this analysis relates to participants understandings of the place of deities within spirituality. Table 2 illustrates the frequency of references to a deity or deities by each respondent. It is noted that deities have only been coded as such if the participant recognises the referent in this way.
46

2012
Table 2. Frequency of References to Deities

Participant (Sample Group) William (MBS) Juanita (MBS) Sarah (MBS) Peter (ACC) Sophia (ACC) Natalia (ACC) Number of references to a deity/deities 0 7 6 9 23 7
Note: This table illustrates the number of times a given deity was mentioned by each respondent. Examples of deities include but are not limited to God, Jesus and Isis.
As may be expected, the ubiquity of reference to a deity or deities in the ACC sample group reflects the centrality of God in ACC doctrine. It is also noted that each ACC respondent referred only to Jesus or God in their accounts and not to nonChristian deities. The MBS sample group were considerably more heterogeneous in this regard, with God, Jesus, the Egyptian goddess Isis and references to other unnamed goddesses. It is further acknowledged that William (MBS) did not make reference to any deity in his account, nor did he assert the relevance or irrelevance of any deities to spirituality. The context within which deities were mentioned also varied between different respondents. For example, in the MBS sample, Sarah made four references to God, and a further two to Jesus. Aside from one reference to her sisters Christianity and belief in Jesus, five of these six references were made whilst describing religion:
Christianity, saying that Jesus is the way to God and almost making God small enough for us to understand. This makes it not Godly for me. I think that spirituality is more open than that.
47

2012
Further to this comment, Sarah explains that whilst God and Jesus have relationships to spirituality insofar as they relate to her understanding of religious attempts at exploring spirituality that even using the word God makes it [spirituality] too small. When asked if she thought there was a more accurate way of capturing spirituality than these religious attempts, Sarah responds:
I think it is almost bigger than human understanding, in a way. By putting a word to it or giving it a specific construct, you are making it too small. [] The human part of me wants to understand it but, the spiritual part of me knows there's not a way of understanding it fully.
For Sarah, to name or conceptualise a deity or deities is an attempt to understand the spiritual in a way which is necessarily limited. In Sarahs account of spirituality, the only explicitly acknowledged role of God is within the spiritually-limited scope of religion. In contrast, Juanita described a different understanding of the place of deities within spirituality. Juanita referred to God twice in the aforementioned discussion of divine forces, however her discussion of deities and other angels and beings extended beyond God. One reference was also made to Jesus, three references to unspecified goddesses and one specific reference to the Egyptian Goddess Isis. The first context within which these references emerged was during the description of two practices presented within Juanitas conceptualisation of spirituality angel healing and meditation. Juanita provides an example of her first experience of angel healing that she undertook with a spiritual healer:
she started singing in I suppose a language I couldn't understand. Her eyes changed colour, she lit some incense, she sat down and she said things to me and she was like she had this
48

2012
sort of stream of, you know she was telling me about things, [] it was almost as though she was doing kind of Reiki or something. But she was telling me to sort of breathe out at certain times and um, it was quite an experience I sort of hadn't had before at all. She used crystals and you know it was yeah, I felt I think some kind of peace after the healing, I felt kind of like I was re-aligned.
The healer expressed that Juanitas grandmother (who is deceased and was never known to Juanita) had been with her throughout the angel healing process. Further to this, the healer shared with Juanita that she was protected by Archangel Michael and a guardian angel, amongst other spiritual guides who had been involved in the process. Juanita provided examples of these guides, including the Egyptian goddess Isis, Jesus, Saint Germaine, Juanita was clear to assert that there were a number of other goddesses and angels whose names she could not recall. Juanita also highlights that furthermore for her, meditation involved imagining or visualising you know, different [] spirits and angels, and goddesses, and saints. During her account; Juanita asserted an indeterminate number of deities and angels that have gone on to serve as her spiritual guides. Juanita intimates a polytheistic view that holds clear significance in her spiritual life where deities are described as both facilitating spiritual practices and in providing guides and spiritual protection that she explained give her a sense of safety and peace. Of the MBS respondents who made reference to deities within their accounts, Juanita and Sarah provide disparate understandings of the role of deities in spirituality. Whilst Sarah refers to deities only in the context of spiritually-limiting religion, Juanita explicitly acknowledges a variety of deities to be significant within her understanding of spirituality.
49

2012
This analysis stops short of inferring that Sarah views deities as an exclusively religious phenomenon. Sarah does state that naming or attempting to understand deities is to attempt to comprehend spirituality, which is by nature incomprehensible in her view. However, Sarah does not provide any claim that would support an inference of her equivocation of belief in deities with religiosity. It remains however, that Juanitas polytheism would be considered a limited view of spirituality in Sarahs perspective. However, Sarahs views can be reconciled with Juanitas conception of spirituality. This is because for Juanita, spirituality is so different for everyone. Focus will now be turned to ACC respondents understandings of the place of deities within spirituality. With 22 references to God and an additional reference to Jesus, Sophie was quick to explain their place in spirituality. When asked what she understood spirituality to be, Sophie responded:
[A]t the core of my spirituality is the belief that, like in Jesus Christ that he you know, walked on the earth died and rose again. That my faith is in him, and yeah, that's probably the core of how I live my spiritual life. I suppose being spiritual for me is practicing spiritual disciplines; reading the word [The Bible], praying, have um yeah just a good kind of connection with God I suppose. It's not necessarily religious, I don't like to think of it as being religious, more a relationship with God.
Within her response, Sophie further highlights: I think that spirituality has to be connected with some... For me it's God, it's a being. I don't think you can be spiritual without any belief in something. For Sophie, it is clear that a deity is the fundamental focus of spirituality. Throughout her account, she outlines spiritual practices, but always in the context of facilitating a relationship with God. However, it is unclear whether Sophies conception of the centrality of a deity to spirituality
50

2012
includes polytheistic variations that hold a centrality of numerous deities. Whether or not Sophie recognises such expressions would facilitate in identifying prospective commensurability with Juanitas (MBS) understanding. These views will be further compared and contrasted in the conclusion of this section. Another ACC respondent, Peter, mentioned deities nine times in his account, each time referring to God. Peter responded to the question on his understanding of spirituality by immediately highlighting his personal belief that spirituality is the other side of the world that we don't see. Kind of the behind the scenes of God's workings. However, Peter acknowledges a broader applicability of spirituality, as a concept that extends to:
[P]eople who don't believe in God. They understand something behind the scenes, something that you can't see but you can feel. Something that's beyond just chemical reactions in the body. So spirituality to me, is mainly just kind of yeah, just behind the scenes, what's going on, what I can't see, what I can feel.
Peter explicates two understandings of spirituality. A personal view that explicitly asserts God as the author and cause of a spirituality existing behind the scenes and an understanding that others can relate to this behind the scenes spirituality without believing in the deity as author. It should be noted that Peter does not limit his personal understanding to God as a sole spiritual antecedent: as much as there is the spiritual side of God, there's the spiritual side of the devil as well, there's what he's up to and what he's doing behind the scenes. This is an assertion that is not raised by Peters ACC sample peers, nor any of the MBS respondents. Peter is quick to clarify that he would not in any way associate himself with the spiritual workings of the devil.
51

2012
Peter also highlights that spirituality doesn't exist without the relationship between a person and God or between individual people coming together. This claim in part echoes Sophies assertions of the centrality of a relationship with God for spirituality. However, there is also a point of departure from Sophies understanding presented in Peters account:
I believe that God and spirituality works every way [] it could work in an atheist's household, it's not just the ACC where God's working. God's working through everything. So those who say they are spiritual, I believe that. When people say they're spiritual but they don't believe in God, I believe that. I know it to be true, you don't have to believe in a deity to feel something happen. If someone comes to a conclusion that there's no deity, after investigating the behind the scenes and everything then that's their conclusion. Who am I to say that they're wrong because I justify my spirituality differently, through my own experiences and own knowledge?
In contrast, when asked to clarify her view on the possibility of an atheist or agnostic spirituality, Sophie responded I think there has to be an object to it. I don't hear many agnostics or atheists describing themselves as spiritual. This is a point of difference within ACC sample respondents accounts of the place of deities within spirituality. The final ACC respondent, Natalia, repeatedly refers to the importance of love within spirituality. Later, Natalia clarifies that love is important to spirituality, and that God is love leading to Natalias further assertion that God is equally important within spirituality. Natalia provides an example of theistic and non-theistic individuals together to illustrate this point:
Whether you're a religious person or not, someone might not believe in God at all. You can be in the room and feel the same feeling as someone else. You might watch something emotional on TV and automatically this spirit of love [] will come [] they'll all
52

2012
experience the same thing. I think that with God, it's actually the spirit of love, you know what I mean. That it's a tangible thing almost if you allow it.
When asked by the interviewer if she believes that others can be spiritual if they acknowledge a different deity or multiple deities, Natalia responds yes in each regard. Explaining this further, Natalia refers to Hindu colleagues as well as Muslim acquaintances who she still regards as spiritual. Natalia clarifies with the example of her aforementioned Muslim friend that she does not presume to know how to reconcile different beliefs:
I know where I'm going and he knows where he's going and then what do you do with that? But at the same time, it doesn't change his morals, and his kindness, so to me, that's it. You know what I mean? Like what do you do?
For Natalia, personally, God has significance with regard to spirituality. However, Natalia maintains that others may not believe in the same deity, or any deity, and nonetheless feel a connection to the spiritual. When it comes to the place (or lack thereof) of a deity/deities within spirituality, a variety of views have been observed within and between samples. Spirituality: Whats God got to do with it? - Conclusions This analysis has identified a considerable diversity of views between MBS sample participants, reflecting the eclectic spiritualities represented at the event. Less diverse responses was observed from ACC participants. When comparing and contrasting the MBS sample responses, it was first noted that William makes no reference to deities in his account. One may be tempted to infer the explanation that William did not feel that deities were integral to his understanding of spirituality. However, William does not state that deities do or do not have a place within his understanding of spirituality, nor does he imply
53

2012
that deities are related or not related to spirituality and he provides no premises supporting or refuting either inference. Accordingly, without a follow-up interview, it is prudent to conclude that the place of deities within Williams understanding remains indeterminate. Williams MBS sample peer, Sarah, does provide her appraisal of deities within spirituality. As has been identified in the first thematic analysis, Sarah provides her view of spirituality as beyond human comprehension. As such, Sarah asserts that naming and assigning qualities to deities are an attempt at knowing the unknowable. Sarah does not explicitly state that it is not possible that deities exist, but does assert that this is beyond human substantiation. Furthermore, Sarah does explicate that deities have a role within spirituality, as either a reductive, religious approach or as a view of spirituality that is for her, too small. In contrast, Juanita identifies her own polytheism, highlighting the significance of this within her personal spirituality and providing her with solace. Juanita does not assert that deities are an essential component of spirituality for everybody, clarifying that spirituality is very different for different people. As such, Sarahs divergent understanding of deities within spirituality can be reconciled with Juanitas explanation. Indeed, the reverse is true, however, Juanitas understanding would consistute a limited view of spirituality according to Sarahs account. It may be possible that Williams understanding of spirituality is commensurable with aspects of his MBS peers accounts, William provides no information to support or refute this claim, let alone provide a deeper explanation of any such relationship. The ACC responses maintained more consistency with one another. Each ACC respondent asserts that their relationship to God and Jesus is central to their
54

2012
personal spirituality. However, whilst Sophie does state that she her understanding of spirituality requires an object, for her a deity, she does not explicitly clarify whether the requirement is limited only to a deity as this object, nor whether a conception of multiple deities would fulfil this requirement. On the other hand, Natalia and Peter who both hold Jesus and God to be central to their personal spirituality both highlight that spirituality does not necessarily entail theism. Natalia further explicitly allows for polytheism in spirituality. However, like Sophie, Peter does not identify a place of polytheism within his conception of spirituality. Finally, it is noteworthy that both Natalia and Peter encapsulate a reflexive spirituality, accepting that others may have different views on deities to themselves and be nonetheless spiritual. When comparing participants across sample groups, each ACC members understanding of deities and spirituality fits within Sarahs (MBS) conception, but only insofar as each ACC respondents view constitutes a limiting approach to spirituality by identifying specific deities. Juanitas (MBS) account with regard to deities can be reconciled wholly with each MBS and ACC respondents accounts, as Juanita is clear that these understandings can vary considerably between individuals. Similarly, both Natalia (ACC) and Peter (ACC) do not deny the authenticity of Juanitas polytheistic spirituality. Furthermore, Natalia explicitly allows for polytheistic expression of spirituality, despite indicating no specific acknowledgement of eclectic polytheisms such as Juanitas. It is unclear however whether Peter (ACC) and Sophie (ACC) view Juanitas (MBS) acknowledgement of multiple deities as relevant to spirituality. Sophie does claim that there must be an object to spirituality, which for her is God. An object
55

2012
may be considered to imply that one deity, but not multiple deities are integral to spirituality. However, this merits reiteration of the caveat with regard to Zinnbauers (1997) study that Western understandings of spirituality can be limited to monotheistic conceptions of deities. This may be owing to the lesser prevalence of polytheism in Western cultural expressions than in those found elsewhere in the world. It is not possible to state whether Peter and Sophies ommission of polytheism is a tacit exclusion of polytheism within spirituality, or a result of limited or no contact with polytheistic understandings. What can be concluded from this thematic analysis is that for the purpose of developing scholarly understandings of spirituality, the relevance or irrelevance of deities cannot be assumed. Future methodologies must allow for polytheism, agnosticism, monotheism and although not explicitly observed within this study, atheism. Presumptuous methodologies can necessarily only yield data within the limits of scholarly preconceptions. Having provided analysis of some key themes of the present research, this thesis will provide some concluding thoughts, as well as future directions for scholars of spirituality.
56

2012
Conclusions, Limitations and Future Directions

The present research, as a pilot study, employed a small sample of participants with which to investigate the research question What is Spirituality? Despite this, analysis of these detailed, nuanced accounts of spirituality have yielded a number of novel findings that merit consideration with regard to future scholarly inquiry into spirituality. Perhaps the most striking finding within the thematic analysis of participants conceptions of spirituality itself is that of Peters (ACC) view of spirituality. Peter explicates a view that is contrary to established scholarly understandings of spirituality as an internal, human phenomenon (see for example, Barker, 2008). For Peter, spirituality is an external reality, that remains extant regardless of human subjectivities. This finding directly relates to the research question, providing a new contribution to scholarly knowledge relating to spirituality. This also serves as a pertinent reminder to researchers of the importance of capturing the nuances of individual understandings of spirituality. Even if Peter is the only individual with this view of spirituality, this analysis has highlighted that a scholarly conceptualisation is only apt insofar as it reflects all of the various expressions of those who identify as spiritual. Further qualitative inquiry and analyses may yet reveal more such findings and this provides a compelling argument for future research efforts of this kind. Thematic analysis of the relationship (or lack thereof) of religion to spirituality revealed several points of discussion. Perhaps unsurprisingly, different individuals conceive of religion vis--vis spirituality in different ways. The present research found religion to be variously understood as either a narrow, reductive approach to spirituality, an entirely separate concept to spirituality or a concept
57

2012
largely separate to spirituality but that may influence ones understanding of spirituality. It can be cogently asserted from this finding that future research may be justified in exploring religion with regard to spirituality, but it must be appreciated that spiritually identifying individuals may vary significantly in the appraisal of a relationship between spirituality and religiosity. Furthermore, in light of Peters (ACC) understanding of spirituality, established scholarly dichotomies of external religiosity versus internal spirituality (see, Barker, 2008) do not hold true in all instances. The present research also identified the ongoing usage of the concepts of self-religion and self-spirituality (see for example, Dyrendal, 2009), despite Heelas (2008) own abandonment of these terms, due to their inaccuracy in light of developments in scholarly understandings of spirituality. The present research supports Heelas (2008) rejection of this terminology with Sarahs (MBS) understanding of spirituality as a universal phenomenon not limited to humanity, let alone the self being incompatible with these terms as they are defined (see, Heelas 1996). The warning against conflation and interchangable use of the terms religion and spirituality in research literature should also be heeded within future inquiry. As was earlier highlighted, it behooves social researchers to ensure that their use of language represents as accurately as possible the individuals that their discourse concerns. Finally, thematic analysis of the views of deities presented by the spiritually identifying respondents demonstrated a variety of understandings. Respondents variously presented polytheistic, monotheistic and non-theistic expressions. This
58

2012
justifies the earlier assertion that future researchers must be methodologically prepared for a variety of individual views on the place of deities within spirituality. Despite the presentation of some novel findings, the present research featured a number of limitations. First of all, whilst diverse views were expressed by respondents, the present research was conducted within limited geographic and cultural contexts. Future replications in different locations are very likely to yield new findings. Secondly, the sample size was small. This was an inescapable limitation of a pilot study conducted over a small time-frame (less than 7 months). Accordingly, research conducted with a higher number of repondents, over a longer period will not only yield more data, but will be more likely to identify new salient themes within responses or novel variations on themes that were explored within this study. Finally, it must be noted that aspects of information provided within interviews proved very difficult to comprehend, this reflects the nature of the research, which requests that participants explicate a phenomenon that may be by nature inexplicable. The greatest limitation of all when attempting to elicit verbal accounts of potentially unusual, unprecedented or unnatural experiences is language. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a way that this limitation may be overcome. Nonetheless, in order to avoid undue rigid confidence in our conclusions; we as researchers would do well to appreciate that verbal accounts are only as reliable as the linguistic vehicle which carries them. In conclusion, the present research goes a short way to providing definition to the concept of spirituality that is commensurate with the understandings of those who identify as spiritual. There is much work ahead, however we have an
59

2012
imperative as social researchers to provide a voice to these individuals, affording them as accurate a scholarly description as possible. But dont take it from this author take it from Weber (2004), its what we do!
60

2012
References
"Definition." n.d., Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged 10th Edition, HarperCollins Publishers, accessed 22 Nov. 2011. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definition>. Australian Christian Churches 2012a, What we believe, Australian Christian Churches, accessed 20 July 2012, <http://www.acc.org.au/AboutUs/WhatWeBelieve.aspx>. Australian Christian Churches 2012b, About ACC, Australian Christian Churches, accessed 20 July 2012, <http://www.acc.org.au/AboutUs.aspx>. Barker, E 1999, New Religious Movements - their incidence and significance. in B Wilson (Ed.) New Religious Movements: Challenge and response. London: Routledge. Barker, E 2008, The church without and the god within: Religiosity and/or spirituality. in E Barker & JA Beckford (Eds.) The centrality of religion in social life: Essays in honour of James A. Beckford. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Belson, WA 1984, Validity in survey research : with special reference to the techniques of intensive interviewing and progressive modification for testing and constructing difficult or sensitive measures for use in survey research, Aldershot: Gower. Cohen, MR 2007, An introduction to logic and scientific method, Safety Harbor: Simon Publications. Denzin, NK 2009, The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9, 139-160. Dyrendal, A 2009, Darkness within: Satanism as a Self-Religion. in JA Petersen (Ed.) Contemporary religious Satanism: A critical anthology. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing. Feest, U 2005, Operationism in psychology: What the debate is about, what the debate should be about. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41, 131-149. Flick, U 1998, An Introduction to Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Gronbeck, BE 1968, From "is"; to "ought;: Alternative strategies. Central States Speech Journal, 19, 31-39. Hall, D 1997, Lived religion in America: Toward a history of practice, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
61

2012
Heelas, P 1996, The New Age movement: The celebration of the self and the sacralization of modernity, Oxford: Blackwell. Heelas, P 2008, Spiritualities of life: New Age romanticism and consumptive capitalism, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Heelas, P & Woodhead, L 2005, The spiritual revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Hempel, CG & Oppenheim, P 1948, Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135-175. Hill, PC, Pargament, K, II, Hood, RW, McCullough, JME, Swyers, JP, Larson, DB & Zinnbauer, BJ 2000, Conceptualizing Religion and Spirituality: Points of Commonality, Points of Departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 51-77. Holmes, P 2007, Spirituality: Some disciplinary perspectives. in K Flanagan & P Jupp (Eds.) A Sociology of Spirituality. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Hume, D & Raynor, D 2001, A treatise of human nature with an introduction by David Raynor, Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press. Luckmann, T 1967, The invisible religion: The problem of religion in modern society, New York: The Macmillan Company. Machado, A & Silva, FJ 2007, Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of conceptual analysis. American Psychologist, 62, 671-681. Miller, WR & Thoresen, CE 2003, Spirituality, religion, and health: An emerging research field. American Psychologist, 58, 24-35. Morse, JM, Barrett, M, Mayan, M, Olson, K & Spiers, J 2002, Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, 1-19. Outhwaite, W 2010, Concept formulation in social science, New York: Taylor & Francis. Paloutzian, RF & Park, CL 2005, Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality, New York: Guilford Press. Possamai-Inesedy, A 2009, The silence of Spirituality within Sociology of Childbirth: Epistemological and methodological considerations. Sarewitz, D & Pielke Jr, R 1999, Prediction in science and policy. Technology in Society, 21, 121-133.
62

2012
Sessanna, L, Finnell, D & Jezewski, MA 2007, Spirituality in Nursing and healthrelated literature. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25, 252-262. Shapere, D 1982, The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy. Philosophy of Science, 49, 485-525. Shri Ram Chandra Mission 2005, What is SRCM?, Shri Ram Chandra Mission, accessed 08 August 2012, <http://www.srcm.org/welcome/srcm.jsp>. Tacey, D 2004, The spirituality revolution: The emergence of contemporary spirituality, New York: Psychology Press. Timothy, D & Conover, P 2006, Nature religion, self-spirituality and New Age tourism. in D Timothy (Ed.) Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys. New York: Routledge. Weber, M 1997, The theory of social and economic organization, New York: Simon and Schuster. Weber, M 2004, Science as a vocation. in C Seale (Ed.) Social research methods: a reader. London: Routledge. Wood, M 2010, The Sociology of Spirituality. The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Zinnbauer, BJ, Pargament, KI, Cole, B, Rye, MS, Butfer, EM, Belavich, TG, Hipp, KM, Scott, AB & Kadar, JL 1997, Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 549-564.
63

2012
Appendices
64
Appendix A:
Towards Consensus on the Conceptualisation of Spirituality A Pilot Study Interview Schedule IMPORTANT: Items A through E must be explained, understood and responded to by all participants before the interview may proceed. Furthermore, the participant must have signed the consent form before the interview may begin.
This interview is semi-structured. As such, the participants responses to the set questions may lead to pertinent new lines of questioning. It is crucial that all information relevant to the participants understanding of spirituality is explored. As such, seek clarification where necessary on any such points.
A. Thank you for your participation in this study. This study is focused on accurately recording and representing your understanding of spirituality. Furthermore, as a researcher I have a commitment to ethical conduct. It is important that you are treated with dignity, respect and in a manner that you are comfortable with throughout the study. Please remember that your participation is strictly voluntary and that you may withdraw at any time during or after the interview without consequence. Please only respond to questions if you are comfortable to do so and please let me know if you experience discomfort at any time during the interview. B. Do you understand the information that you were given in the information sheet? C. Do you understand the terms of the consent form? D. Are there any questions that you have about this study, or what is required from you in your participation in the study? E. With your informed consent, we may proceed. Please answer all questions in as much detail as you are comfortable with.
1. Can you please describe the path that brought you to the Australian Christian Churches/Mind Body Spirit Festival? 2. What do you understand spirituality to be? 3. How did you come to identify yourself as spiritual?
F. Thank you once again for your participation in this study.
G. Do you have any further questions about the study or your participation? If any do arise at any stage after you leave today, please make contact through the details provided on the information sheet.
65

Towards Consensus On The Conceptualisation of Spirituality

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Towards Consensus On The Conceptualisation of Spirituality

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Towards Consensus on the Conceptualisation of Spirituality

Dr. Alphia Possamai-Inesedy

Dr. Caelum Arness

Dr. Agnes Petocz

Dr. Adam Possamai

Table 1. Frequency of References to Religion Table 2. Frequency of References to Deities