FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

GEORGE F. McLEAN*

Future directions for research in the Church was the subject of a consultation held in Dec., 1987, with some twenty persons who have been engaged in research and research coordination in Church related institutes, agencies and/or universities. Its goal was to identify what has been learned about this type of work from the years of research, consultat ion and strategic planning since Vatican II. The perspective was retrospective only in the sense of drawing upon the past as a resource for clarifying the nature of the enterprise, its present needs and directions for its future development.

This paper cannot do justice to the wealth of ideas presented, but having been revised in the light of suggestions and additions by the participants it can be taken as reflecting, not a common position, but many major concerns and suggestions. The author has added his own insights and organized the material in three sections: the general shift in the Church's self-interpretation which took place in Vatican II and two levels or approaches to research in response to this shift: one treats the Church as object, the other as subject. Neither of these is air-tight or totally exclusive of the other, indeed the first has led gradually to more attention for the latter. However, the division makes it possible to focus first upon the object oriented research done thus far, its contributions and its needs. Stage II by directing attention to the emerging sense of Church as subject makes it possible to understand the force of a number of current concerns and interests regarding research in the Church and their implications for future planning.

In Western religious circles the effort to comprehend and express one's relation to God has been influenced notably by a Platonic model. In that light the divine source of all was seen as quite other--above and beyond the world and mankind. Thus, divine revelation and grace was envisioned as `coming down' to a fallen humanity. In this perspective what was religious and

---------------

*To appear in Francis X. Gannon, ed., Catholicism in America: Research Planning and Consultation Experience in America Since Vatican II, which was the occasion for the consultation.

religiously significant tended to be conceived in contrast to theworld and to mankind.

This had important implications for intellectual work. It was not that attention to nature had been unknown--see Aristotle's detailed descriptions. But in view of the above model of the structure of reality and meaning studies of nature were not considered significant to the religious life of the Church, whose attention was oriented by a relatively other-worldly philosophy and theology. Work in the natural and social sciences, in anthropology and archeology would wait until the Renaissance or modern times and then be described as "secular" sciences. This carried the oftentimes not too subtle connotation, not merely of being concerned with the world, but of being in some sense opposed to, or at least in competition with, the divine.

In this light, it is possible to appreciate how radical was the shift in horizons initiated in the Church by the Second Vatican Council. From Hei degger's Being in Time, to R ahner's Spirit in the World, to Vatican II's Church in the World, a steady progression of thought effectively inverted the Platonic model--or in more classical terms "stood it on its head"--in what many would call a radical "paradigm shift."

As a result, God was no longer pictured as talking directly to king or pope while all others waited to receive from them the all-important--indeed, the only important--word. On the contrary, God came to be seen as much in immanent as in transcendent terms. His power was envisioned as coming less from above than from the depths of our being. The Spirit was listened for, not only in the words of authorities, but in one's heart. The new term, `collegiality,' was needed to express the truth of this for Bishops; and parish councils were developed to make it operative in parishes.

The assimilation of the implications for research of this shift appears to have two stages. The first, which extended from Vatican II more or less to the present, began "to take the world seriously," as it was expressed; but it still treated the world and its people as objects to be examined. The promise of the second stage lies especially in the future, and consists in recognizing the reality of the world and of humankind, not merely as object, but as subject.

The first stage treated the world as an object to be looked at and acted upon. Its attitude alternated between concern for the world as an ailing child and defense against it as an obstacle or even a threatening challenge. Hence, inasmuch as the Church was to be in the world, its future ministers would need to be trained in the "secular" sciences as "useful tools" for analysis. This was done at the expense of philosophical training directed to the level of properly personal understanding, evaluation and response, i.e., the realm of the spirit. Similarly, in research it was supposed that theology was in a theoretical order separated from life--a kind of pure research. Hence, the newly found importance of the world required a separate effort of applied research to gather data about life in the parishes and religious orders. Such information remains a continuing and developing need.

In sum, it would appear that unwittingly efforts to take the world seriously have been shaped largely by the classical Platonic model. What has been accomplished in these terms is largely the burden of this volume, but some salient characteristics of this effort--both accomplishments and cautions--can be noted here. These concern the development of a concept of research in the Church, the relation of this research to Church authority and its role in the revitalization of religious orders.

The Nature of Research

Research can be divided into basic and applied according as it is directed either to knowledge through processes of falsification and judgement, or to the will, decision making and action. Applied research in short is oriented toward, and in service of, informed decision making in the face of possible alternatives. In this light it is integral to planning for it is directed to determining what one wants to accomplish and how to go about this. Basic research is generally descriptive of why things are so; whereas applied or decision oriented research tends to be normative and determine what ought to be the case.

The research varies notably as the Church is taken either as teacher or as institution:

As Teach er: Here theologi ans serve as its research and development arm, while social science researchers help it read the signs of the times.

As Insti tution: In contrast to an organization in which individuals fill roles in which they serve as means for the well-being of the whole, in the Church as institution individuals are to be attended to in, and for, themselves. Research here can follow a number of models:

Logical: This is a process of formulating the problem, choosing the criteria for selecting between alternatives, and developing and evaluating these alternatives in a process of judgement and implementation.

Intu itive: This approach is used when the disparate bits of data are difficult to organize, integrate, evaluate and apply; it does not substitute for, but should complement rational analysis. Its weakness lies in proceeding on tenuous, unevaluated or even biased grounds.

Inspirational: This recognizes that the Spirit uses ordinary means, but also attempts to transcend secular decision making by taking account of the inspiration of the Spirit through: (a) asking and expecting the assistance of the Spirit, (b) being prepared to accept Its guidance, and (c) looking for conviction that reflects inspiration.

Participational: This reflects the importance of corresponsibility in the decision making process as a condition for involving people in the implementation of the resultant decisions. When concerned with means this may or may not be desirable depending on the group's degree of cohesion or conflict regarding goals. In research regarding goals the political factor tends to be high and can be an impediment.

Auth ority

Unfortunately, the training of those who exercise authority in the Church may not include the development of competency in applied research. Indeed the language of those in authority tends to be rather theological and biblical and their mode of conceptualization more graphic and image laden.

One major conclusion from these years of experience in applied research is the importance of training those who will be in administrative positions to be able to take account of the data resulting from applied research and to bridge from data to decision making and action. This is a prerequisite for the strategic planning required in our complex times at the various levels of administration in the Church as a major institution. This is not just a matter of process or group dynamics; it is a question of being able to give due weight to knowledge that has been gathered and to envisage its operational implications. The sense of possessing this mode of competency correlates also to satisfaction in administrative work in which most of those in ministry must engage. Hence the development of such skills is a matter of importance, not only for the proper fulfillment of a role in the "organization," but for the self-fulfillment and personal growth of those in ministry as individuals and as leaders in their communities as institutions.

This competency will enable the Church to make effective use of the wealth of demo graphic and other relevant data available from the Ce nsus Bureau and other public agencies. As this becomes increasingly refined and Church units are redefined in corresponding geographical terms this information is becoming extremely useful. Hence, it was recommended that, even though each diocese could not have its own research center, nonetheless each should have someone who knows where such data can be found and how it can be accessed for Church use.

Religious

Research for religious orders has been carried out at a number of levels, some demographic, others financial. Two additional types are more specific to Church. One concerns the development of theory and of models for reorienting the work of religious communities. Here the use of research techniques can aid community interaction and add needed elements of objectivity in making stressful decisions. The other concerns the identification of the Charism of a religious order through a factor analysis of key documents, and an interpretation of that Charism in a way which, not merely repeats the past, but applies it in new ways for new times.

In this the difference in age groups is important. Younger religious tend to look more to the ways of responding to apostolic needs, while older religious tend to put greater importance upon the quality of community life. At times it becomes incumbent to recognize the inevitability of ceasing operation and to make appropriate preparations for this. The communication of realistic assessments and projections comes within the purview of applied researchers.

But to speak about the charism or underlying spirit of a religious order, about its creative application and about what is best in the longer range in view of the goals of the Church is really to speak about Spi rit and Life. This brings us to research regarding Church, no longer as object, but as subject, for to treat these issues only by the means of objective research could be, not merely inadequate, but destructive. For this reason the new dimension and concerns described below point the way toward needed new developments for future research in the Church.

The second stage, which only now is beginning to be articulated, sees the world and the human community (including the People of God) still more profoundly and richly, that is, no longer as mere object, but as subject also. It is in human life in its most personal and passionate free commitments of fall and Redemption that the Trinity continually reveals Itself. This revelation of the Spirit is lived in personal interchange, first of all with the members of one's family, then with one's neighbors, and progressively with ever broader communities. Over time and at each of these three levels interpersonal relations take on specific patterns which become customs. Their most important characteristics are appreciated or valued. These values, when handed on (tradita), constitute the tr aditions. It is in these terms that a family's, community's or people's life can be cultivated, and such a cult ure in turn becomes the h eritage of future generations. These values, traditions and cultural heritages constitute the most basic context of human and religious striving.

In this light it begins to appear crucial that research be incarnate in the lives of the people. Even this may not be adequate if the notion of `incarnation' still reflects a Pla tonic supposition that there is some other `place', some separated world of ideas, that is the proper home of the mind and the proper object of knowledge. That view had been inverted in the paradigm shift at Vat ican II, but it is only now, in a second stage, that research begins to appear, not merely as a necessary means, but as an essential dimension of the life of the People of God. It is, namely, their means of coming increasingly to image the life of the Spirit in a complex world.

In view of the above, the place to look for understanding regarding development of the Church is precisely in those places where the free commitment or faith and human love (or charity) are realized. All dimensions of human and social relations are personal and religiously significant precisely in as much as they express these virtues. Cu lture, in turn, is the integrating pattern formed by these acts of freedom by and between people. These occur in the operative context of their community life which, in turn, is the concrete expression of that life.

Research in the Church must be marked by sensitivity to this. Its implications for the future might be sketched out under the following headings--not to intimate that these were simply unknown in the past, but rather to attempt to delineate some of the implications for research done with specific attention to subjectivity.

The Primacy of Commu nity Life over Technique,

of Discou rse over T ext

It will be important that such research in the Church be sensitive not only to text, but to discourse. Text is the objective and scientifically structured pattern which emerges from technical analysis by experts in a field. It is abstract because designed to reflect what is significant for that field alone and for all of that field. It is rational--generally rationalist--because it looks for formal patterns, which by nature are universal and repeatable.

When seen in relation to the above shift from object to subject, however, these characteristics of objectivity begin to manifest certain weaknesses if research is to be oriented toward revealing the life of the Spirit in the Church. What is central for the Spirit is precisely the freedom, and hence the uniqueness, of a people's responses one to another; the important factor is the love which goes, not against, but beyond the order of rationalization.

Hence, research in the Church can no longer be merely the formally structured and critically controlled text constructed on the basis of an abstract model. It will need to take more account of discourse, that is, of the flow of inte rcommunication precisely as interchange between persons, each of whom is a center of freedom, uniqueness and creativity. This is the central character of participational decision making. It is, after all, where two or more are gathered together that the Spirit is present and at work.

The Personal Dimension

If research is not to distract from, or even interfere with, the work of the Spirit in the Church it will need to find ways to be sensitive, not only to quantifiable and hence repeatable and universal factors, but to the unique expressions of human freedom. At root, this is an epistemological problem concerning the nature of knowledge and of reality. The very essence of the secularization of modern times has been the progressive shrinking of the horizons of knowledge and reality to the point where they could no longer recognize the divine either above or in the hearts of the people. It is essential that research in the Church not become an instrument of this process by unwittingly accepting these same horizons with their closure to the dimensions of person, freedom, responsibility and love. Indeed, the reassertion of these personal factors in recent decades has been above all a reaction to the failure of the rationalization of modern life to leave place for the person.

Dem ographic data and the like is, of course, no less important in opening a parish than a commercial enterprise, and the first phase of the research response to Vatican II provided essential new access to such ob jective data. But properly religious meaning lies at another level of insight not susceptible to investigation by `objective' questioning. Hence, the latter can tend to obscure and mislead on religious issues unless it is part of a broader pattern of research done with additional methods. Objective polls which indicated that religious faith was strong and minorities satisfied in the midst of periods of secularization and social unrest point to the need for methods more sensitive to properly religious meaning.

Important progress has been made in this regard. In humanistic psychology methods of interview and factor analysis have gone importantly beyond quantification in approaching the properly human elements of motivation and response, faith and love. Methods from literary analysis make it possible to analyze and interrelate numerous levels of meaning and response. Not surprisingly such hermeneutic methods are the methodological correlative of phenomenol ogy's contribution of our new awareness of pers on, commu nity and cul ture. It is these dimensions of meaning which, with time, have come increasingly to be seen as characterizing the basic insight of Vatican II.

Plu ralism as Key to Creativity

The need to attend to what is free and unique has important implications as well for the ability of research to be a factor in the growth and development in the Church, to contribute new dynamism and to open new horizons. In this what is important is not so much what is, but what is not yet. Since this can be drawn only from what already exists, however, the question becomes how one can develop new ways of looking at what is and has been. For this one needs to be able to break beyond the confines of the perspectives within which thought has proceeded up to the present.

The religious community in this country is especially well placed to do this, and for two reasons. First as reflecting the work of the Spirit it is generative of the personal and hence the unique--new, unrepeated and unrepeatable--acts of human freedom rooted in faith and expressed in love. These might be called "serendipitous," but more properly they reflect the inspiration of the Spirit. They come from the person in his or her circumstances and as an authentic personal response by a life lived under the inspiration and appeal of Unlimited Love. This does not limit one to repeating a single mode of acting; rather, by making all possible it evokes truly creative responses.

Secondly, a pluralistic society has a number of communities and hence multiple models to challenge one's understanding. This makes possible the discovery of new and creative ways to unfold the potentialities of the heritage of the Church. For this to take place research must not be closed within the horizons of the Catholic community, but must be so located as to favor comparison with, and stimulation by, alternate visions.

Further, if attention is directed above all to the living of the life of the Spirit, then the research will need to concern persons in the concrete context in which they live. This means that greater attention must be paid to the detailed variations of local and even neigh borhood communities. Indeed, some would see the technical ability to handle large numbers and to generate national and world averages as an impediment to real understanding regarding personal lives as they are lived concretely, that is, in specific contexts. Others would note that national averages can still be helpful in a secondary sense, namely, as a point of comparison for the local data.

Collaboration vs Confrontation

Along with refocusing research from the national to the local level, emphasis upon persons in community suggests a shift from confrontational to cooperative research. By confrontational research is meant work done without significant involvement by Church authorities or constituents in the sponsorship of the work. The investigator forms the questions independently, collects the data in ways not influenced or shaped by the community, and interprets and publishes the results in a thoroughly independent manner. Hence, the results come quite literally as `ob-ject' or `thrown against' the community. Inevitably, this promotes objectivity; it is so intended and undoubtedly is able to provide important help. But it threatens to do so at the cost of attention to the very subjectivity which is central to the religious life of the Church community. This confrontational model would seem too distant from, and too tangential to the workings of the Spirit at the very roots of personal life and in history to provide the self-understanding and the ability for self-determination and self-direction needed by the Christian community.

In contrast to this confrontational model is the collaborative, consultative and participational model in which the community is an integral part of the search. Here the researcher is more of a technical advisor whose task is: (a) to help the community to form the question in an effective way, rather than to decide what is important and what that question should be; (b) not so much to gather data about the community, as to develop ways in which the community can come to self discovery regarding important aspects of its life and struggles; and (c) not to name and hence give meaning to the results of the investigation, but to assist the community in the formulation and articulation of such meaning.

In such a collaborative model the researcher must work, not only upon, but with the community. This means working with all levels of leadership which the People of God has shaped for itself through the ages and down to this day. This must include such evolving local structures as the parish pattern of council, committees and varied ministers; district programs and agencies; diocesan structures and officials; national publications, universities, conferences of religious and bishops; and international integration through Vatican offices and family, professional and religious organizations.

Se lf-Awareness in the Church

This raises issues regarding the neutrality, disengagement and objectivity of Church related research--and perhaps more fundamentally about research itself--namely, should research be understood in terms of objectivity alone? When the reality being studied is nonpersonal then objectivity might be considered the hallmark of any attainment of reality. But the reality of Church is not object but subject; it is not a fixed entity to be observed, but the deepest source of meaning and the ultimate goal of life. In religion, where the concern is with the very subjectivity of the person, to focus upon objectivity would so exclude the reality being sought that the very claim to present the real would become a deception.

In this case truth cannot be accomplished by an external instrument or agent; it must be a properly personal and communitary search to affirm one's reality or self-identity. This search to comprehend, affirm and promote one's life is an issue of deepest truth and truthfulness. Because it is not an addition to, but the center of personal freedom and interpersonal love, no external agent, no mere technique or process can purvey this to the Church. As essential to the nature of a properly Christian people, this truthfulness must come from within, for it is Spirit and life.

What then is to be said of fear on the part of the Church, whether people or hierarchy, to face reality and the resultant impeding of research? For the Church to be distracted from this task or to block it because of fear or prejudgment is to deny its own reality in bitter self-deception. In order to be overcome the rejection of research must first be correctly identified as the refusal to engage in the struggle of the Spirit to breath new life in our day. As sin against the Spirit this cannot be forgiven or healed precisely because it constitutes a rejection of the personal openness and engagement required for receiving the light that is integral to redemption. It would be a destructive deception on the part of researchers to suggest that this can be bypassed, that research provides another and objective access to personal subjectivity, in effect, that they can do what the Spirit cannot.

In brief, in the complex and rationalized culture of our times research is integral to the life of the Church. It can neither be done without the Church not can it be done for the Church; rather, it is an essential dimension of the Church's own process of self understanding lived as faith and charity. Only the Church can carry out this research, because by definition it is the Mystical Body which lives the life of the Spirit and hence alone can be self-aware in the Spirit.

Cu lture and Cri tique

One branch of hermeneutics, namely critical hermeneutics, has developed important insight regarding the process of communitary self-discovery as a process of group self-determination and growth. In particular, it points out the importance for this process of the pattern of social relations. These can be distorted by injustice between cl asses, ca stes, ra ces or m inorities. When the sensitivities, concerns and ideas of all cannot surface to be adequately reflected upon and given appropriate weight, then truth cannot be discovered or play its creative role. This is not just an impediment for the minority which is thereby disadvantaged; it leaves the entire people trapped by their own blinders, prisoners of their misconceptions and hobbled in their attempt to respond in the Sp irit.

To the degree then that research is a community and collaborative project integral to the life of the Church, it will be possible only inasmuch as the Church is truly a community or "ecclesia" marked, not only by a collegiality of Bi shops, but by full and effective participation of all in a cohesive and cooperative unity.

This means that research must not be employed by Church interests merely to defend and maintain the status quo, to produce proof of how well things are. This can give needed encouragement in the good, but it can also serve to undermine the creative desire in people to grow in response to new challenges. This is the special danger for those who control funding, for they tend naturally to make their decisions on the basis of the prevailing order and for its maintenance.

If research is to play its part in the life of the Church it must be marked by truthfulness as the ability to say what is, by vision to reflect the experience of history, by sensitivity to culture, by response to cultural change as the dynamics of the present, by balance in evaluating the life of commu nity understood as Church, and by creativity in pioneering its possibilities for the future in the light of Gos pel.

To envisage these possibilities will require a rich sense of the dynamics of contemporary cultural change and comparison with the ways in which other Churches or private and public groups have responded to related issues. Hence, it is important that research avoid a ghetto mentality too strictly restricted to, and as, Church, for all dimensions of the life of our times must be engaged.

This requires that the research effort have both depth and breadth. It must be a deep search by each commu nity to retrieve the resources of its own culture, and must include a richly diversified cross section of the People of God in order to be truly sensitive to all these resources and currents of contemporary thought, concerns, hopes and striving. This work of research has been appropriately described as the contemporary characteristic of an informed laity.

It is important, however, to avoid the merely popularist prejudice that with a little coordination the people can develop adequate understanding. It is true that the people must be central to the decision making process which chooses their future. Nevertheless, it is not reasonable to expect that without specialized training they will have mastery of the tools for analysis or the ability to access and interpret the wealth of information and knowledge needed to identify their options in a structurally complex and culturally pluralistic society.

The depth and range in specialized personnel required for this exists and is available in the Church--specifically, in its universities. These employ on a full time basis literally hundreds of anthropologists, psychologists, specialists in literature, philosophers, etc. An inquiry ten years ago showed broad and generous willingness on the part of this community of scholars to contribute their specialized capabilities in response to related research needs of the Church. It is important that this wealth of capabilities not all be syphoned off by consultancy fees into research for defense or commerce. These universities must develop the vision, courage and ingenuity to stimulate and coordinate their immense intellectual resources in terms of their mission as integral parts of the Catholic community.

In sum, research might best be understood as the search on the part of the People of God for a better way to image the life of the Spirit in today's world. This search--and its answers --must come, not to, but from, this People. It, in turn, must be truly free, technically prepared, broadly and symmetrically engaged and pointed toward the future in faith, hope and creative love.

The Catholic University of America

Washington, D.C.