Muslims in Britain

Muslims in Britain: An Introduction is a long-awaited new book by Sophie Gilliat-Ray, Director of the Centre for the Study of Islam in the UK, Cardiff University (Cambridge University Press, 2010, ISBN 978-0-521-53688-2, £19.99 paperback – also available in hardback).

The volume deliberately sets out ‘to rebalance current discourse by focusing on issues that are perhaps much closer to the “ordinary” daily lives of British Muslims’, shifting emphasis away from ‘the political, religious and social consequences of “crisis” events over the past three decades’.

Part I of the book thus covers the historical and religious roots of Islam in Britain, and Part II its contemporary dynamics, including socio-demographic profile; religious nurture and education; religious leadership; mosques; gender, religious identity and youth; and engagement and enterprise.

The contents are essentially a judicious and well-presented synthesis of recent academic research into British Islam, particularly published as monographs or journal articles in the 1990s and 2000s.

An appendix (pp. 266-72) provides a useful overview of the main categories of sources, with cross-references to the bibliography (which, as a single alphabetical listing, is otherwise somewhat difficult to navigate).

Although Islam in Britain has generated few statistics itself, partly because it lacks central structures, the quantitative interest of Muslims in Britain is somewhat greater than the inclusion of only four tables in the volume might suggest.

This is especially (but not solely) the case in chapter 5 (pp. 115-29), which summarizes the socio-demographic profile, mainly based on the 2001 census, drawing upon Serena Hussain’s Muslims on the Map (2008). As Gilliat-Ray acknowledges, this census has probably been overtaken in large part by the very rapid growth in Muslim numbers during the intervening nine years.

The one quantitative source which the author does not really deploy is national sample surveys, with the exception of the Labour Force Survey to a small extent. The Citizenship Surveys are mentioned at one point but not used.

Opinion polls among Muslims are also largely ignored, seemingly rejected (p. 269) because they are ‘crisis-driven publications’ which ‘are rarely underpinned by the normal protocols of scholarly peer review, ethical scrutiny or in-depth social scientific methodological awareness’.

This seems a somewhat extreme position to take, denying the reader the opportunity to gain potentially useful insights into Muslim thinking which are not otherwise available at national level. Some polls embrace ‘ordinary’ and ‘everyday’ matters of faith, not just attitudes to Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism and so forth. 

Hopefully, one of the exceptions to the rule which Gilliat-Ray would concede is the survey of British Muslims undertaken in February-March 2009 by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Robert Putnam (Harvard University), David Voas (University of Manchester) and David Campbell (University of Notre Dame), with funding from the John Templeton Foundation.

Intended to parallel many of the questions in the British Social Attitudes Survey for 2008, this study has yet to be reported in any detail. But, when it does appear, it will be an essential contribution to the academic literature.

Also out-of-scope for Gilliat-Ray is any substantive discussion of how the majority British population has reacted to the emergence of Islam as a major faith in Britain. For instance, the term Islamophobia gets only three entries in the index.

In these ways, while Muslims in Britain offers an excellent introduction to many aspects of the community, it by no means tells the whole story.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Religious Equality

Pat Thane has edited a new book exploring seven aspects of inequality in Britain since the Second World War, including religious. Entitled Unequal Britain: Equalities in Britain since 1945 (London: Continuum, 2010, ISBN 978-1-84706-298-7), its contributors are all associated with the Centre for Contemporary British History, Institute of Historical Research, University of London.

The chapter on religion and belief (pp. 53-70, 196-7, 214) is by Liza Filby, currently completing her PhD at the Department of History, University of Warwick on ‘God and Thatcher: Religion and Politics in 1980s’ Britain’. In her essay she provides a broadly chronological account (including timeline) of the development of multi-faith Britain since the nineteenth century, documenting linkages with immigration and ethnicity and recent legislative changes designed to accommodate religious diversity.

As with the other six chapters, there is a brief statistical appendix (pp. 69-70) which, frankly, is quite disappointing. It comprises three tables of a) membership of the five main Christian denominations in 1945, 1955, 1965, 1975 and 1985; b) estimates (by Peter Brierley) of affiliates to non-Christian faiths in 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1985 (these figures are especially problematical); and c) religious profession for the United Kingdom and separately for Scotland in the 2001 population census.

The opportunity is thus missed to provide truly contemporary data about religious inequality in modern Britain. For instance, the extensive literature on religious disadvantage in the census (such as Serena Hussain, Muslims on the Map, London: Tauris Academic, 2008) is not mined. There is likewise no consideration of survey data, including the Citizenship Survey and opinion polls which touch on Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and perceived discrimination against Christians.

BRIN readers interested in exploring religious equality issues further might well start with the relevant section of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s website at:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/vision-and-mission/our-business-plan/religion-belief-equality/

This includes a link to EHRC Research Services’ newly-established religion or belief network, which issues an occasional e-bulletin, and to Research Report No. 48 (2009) by Linda Woodhead with Rebecca Catto on ‘Religion or Belief’: Identifying Issues and Priorities. The EHRC’s research team is currently preparing a statistical briefing on religion and belief issues. To join the religion or belief network, contact Research@equalityhumanrights.com

Posted in Historical studies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Visualising Religious Switching, Sticking and Leaving

David Voas last week sent me a link to this fascinating Internet Monk blog chart, illustrating data collected by Pew on religious background, current affiliation and religious switching in the US. (Please do have a look at the original post and responses – they are full of detail.)

Michael Bell Chart of Pew Data

 

 

 

I have developed a similar chart for BRIN. Respondents to the 2008 British Social Attitudes survey were asked,

‘Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion; which?’ (the ‘ReligSum’ variable)

and additionally,

‘In what religion, if any, were you brought up: What was your family’s religion?’ (the ‘RlFamSum’ variable).

The responses are also available in more detailed categories (e.g. United Reformed Church, Free Presbyterian, Brethren, Buddhist) which will shortly be uploaded at http://www/brin.ac.uk/figures.

However, for graphical purposes, the numbers for many groups are extremely small, which means they are difficult to depict. It’s also difficult to interpret the significance of the proportion joining or leaving accurately when numbers are so small.

Accordingly, categories were combined by the data publishers to form six broad groups: Church of England/Anglican, Roman Catholic, Other Christian (including the free churches and those people simply identifying themselves as non-denominational Christian), Non-Christian (members of other world religions and New Religious Movements), No Religious Affiliation, and those who refused to answer or did not know. It’s perhaps unhelpful that new and growing Christian groups are included in the ‘other Christian’ group together with nonconformist groups in decline – a further version of this chart could separate them out.

The chart ranks the groups in terms of popularity, with the ‘religion of upbringing’ on the left, and ‘current religion’ on the right. Each circle’s area is proportionate to the size of the group.

Both charts are a type of weighted flow chart: the flow arrows between the past religious status and current religious status have a thicker or thinner width in proportion to the number of people moving between each group at each time point. The intent is to illustrate the proportion of respondents who have switched between religious groups at some point between childhood and at the time of the survey, including from having a religious identity to having none, or vice versa.

Religion-WFlow-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Britain, there is less switching between religious groups and more from having a religious affiliation to having none (which the BRIN chart highlights) and so the sizes of the original and current religious groups are of more interest.

Michael Bell at Internet Monk used Microsoft Paint to devise the chart, whereas we simply used Excel and added text using Photoshop, avoiding the need to calculate pixel numbers. Curved and straight lines are available in the ‘Shapes’ option and widths can be adjusted to the correct centimetre. The circles were similarly adjusted using πr2  to calculate the width and height options.

The main flaw is that the area of the flow arrows is not proportionate to the size of the groups (which is what may be expected intuitively). The absolute width of the arrows was therefore arbitrary, and so I set the total belonging to each religious category in childhood as having a width equal to the diameter of each relevant circle on the left hand side. The obvious problem with this is that the arrows pointing to ‘Current Religion: None’ add up to having a greater width than the diameter, so one arrow was overlaid over another to ease presentation.

The underlying data are also available in this spreadsheet.

Besides the number of respondents reporting their religious identity during their upbringing, and current religious identity, tables are also available illustrating the data in percentage terms: first, setting the total for each group membership during upbringing to 100% (to illustrate religion of destination for those with a particular religious or irreligious upbringing), and secondly, setting the total for each current group membership to 100% (to illustrate religion of origin for each religious group as currently described). For example, in the first table, 52% of those who had an upbringing affiliated to the Church of England retain an Anglican affiliation; in the second table, 92% of those who currently have an affiliation to the Church of England had an upbringing in the Church of England.

Three issues should be borne in mind. First, the meaning of affiliation is not fixed across religious communities or over time, and additionally depends on the respondent. For Roman Catholics, membership depends on baptism, whereas for other denominations it may be more formal and associational; for some, religious identity also has a cultural component. Some may over-report affiliation as children in order to represent themselves as having switched bravely into having a different identity or ‘None’. Some would also argue that while there are fewer adherents compared with a generation or two ago, the religious practice of those who are affiliated is of increasingly higher quality and commitment.

Secondly, it should be remembered that the chart doesn’t adjust for age or migration history. The Church of England or Roman Catholic stickers are likely to be somewhat older than the leavers, and some of the stickers may also have had their religious identities formed in other countries, for which we make no allowance here. Thirdly, this is a snapshot of religious identity: over the life course some respondents will change their ‘current affiliation’ again – some moving between different religious communities, others choosing at a later stage to move from having a religious identity to having none.

Do I think this is a helpful visualisation method? Well, it’s attractive, and hammers home the point that the ‘Religious Nones’ are the dominant group and the religious affiliation they originally had. It’s not wonderful at depicting switching between religious groups because there is so little – the relevant arrows are hairline. The s-curve option in Excel takes some manoeuvring and it’s time-consuming to develop a graphic in this way. A more adept user of Photoshop may have better luck at devising such charts both efficiently and more attractively. A future option might be to look at using software such as Netdraw, where the width of arrows and position of circles can be determined automatically. Further ideas are very much welcome.

Posted in Measuring religion, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 13 Comments

Religion in Scotland

Scotland’s Population, 2009, the 155th annual review of the Registrar General for Scotland, was published on 6 August. It can be purchased in print format (ISBN 978-1-874451-80-8, £7) or be downloaded from:

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/annual-review-09/rgar2009.pdf

The review is accompanied by Vital Events Reference Tables, 2009, which is available on the internet at:

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-and-data/vital-events/ref-tables-2009/index.html

As usual, these annual publications contain an analysis of marriages in Scotland by mode of solemnization. In 2009, of 27,524 ceremonies 48% were religious and 52% civil. The religious figure was almost 1% higher than in 2008, but the general trend remains towards civil weddings, interrupted only in 1997-2002 when there was a small rise in religious services largely associated with an increase of ‘tourism’ marriages, especially carried out at Gretna. Back in 1946-50, civil ceremonies accounted for only 17% of the total in Scotland; they first became a majority in 2005. Full data since the Second World War are given in Table 7.6 of Vital Events Reference Tables, 2009.

Of the 13,285 religious ceremonies in 2009, 46% were conducted by the Church of Scotland, 13% by the Roman Catholic Church and 40% by other religions. Heading the list of these ‘other religions’ is the Humanist Society of Scotland, with 12% of all religious ceremonies (humanist celebrants have been authorized to conduct marriages in Scotland since 2005). The Pagan Network and the Spiritualists’ National Union also make an appearance, with 26 and 14 marriages respectively. So, a proportion of religious ceremonies are not really religious in the understood sense of the word. Neither are religious marriages necessarily conducted in places of worship. In fact, in 2009 only 54% were, hotels being the venue for about 2,000 religious weddings and castles and other historic buildings for 1,100.

These statistics, coupled with the forthcoming (16 September) visit to Edinburgh of Pope Benedict XVI, have prompted Adam Morris to write a summative assessment of the state of religion in Scotland. This appeared under the tile ‘Losing our Religion’ in the Edinburgh Evening News for 9 August. The article can be found (with sundry comments) at:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Adam-Morris-Losing-our-religion.6464064.jp

In it Morris claims that ‘Scots are turning their back on religion’, with just 53% identifying themselves as Christian. Besides the marriage statistics, he also cites falling congregations (with only 18% of Scots regular churchgoers and two-thirds not attending during the past year), the disappearance of Sunday schools and other church-based youth organizations, and the growing fashion for non-religious naming ceremonies in lieu of Christian baptism.

Morris quotes Peter Kearney, a spokesperson for the Catholic Church in Scotland, who says that society today is designed against faith, with churchgoers ‘increasingly seen as odd’. Kearney acknowledges that church numbers are down but highlights reduced participation in organizations in general, a point with which Morris agrees. ‘While all may not be alive and well across Christian churches in Scotland, the 600,000 who attend every Sunday is still more than the 100,000 who go to a professional football game and the 300,000 who attend the cinema.’

Clearly, the Edinburgh Evening News would not claim this to be an especially deep analysis of religion in Scotland. Those interested in learning more could try: Clive Field, ‘“The Haemorrhage of Faith”? Opinion Polls as Sources for Religious Practices, Beliefs and Attitudes in Scotland since the 1970s’, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 16, 2001, pp. 157-75; Peter Brierley, Turning the Tide: The Challenge Ahead – Report of the 2002 Scottish Church Census, London: Christian Research, 2003; David Voas, ‘Religious Decline in Scotland: New Evidence on Timing and Spatial Patterns’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 45, 2006, pp. 107-18; and the various publications by Steve Bruce and Tony Glendinning arising from the religion module of the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (http://www.brin.ac.uk/sources/1348). However, caveat emptor – the statistics in all of these writings are now several years out of date.

Posted in Official data, Religion in the Press | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

More Perceptions of Islam

Islamophobia certainly appears to be a hot topic in 2010. Ten opinion polls have already been undertaken between January and July to gauge the attitudes of adult Britons towards Islam and Muslims.

Now The Guardian of 3 August has noted another, carried out on behalf of the London-based Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA). iERA was established in 2009 as a global organization committed to presenting Islam to the wider society (a process known in Islamic theology as dawah).

The iERA investigation was conducted among a random sample of 500 English-speaking non-Muslims aged 16 and over interviewed face-to-face on the street in Britain by DJS Research in November 2009. Fieldwork seems to have occurred disproportionately in major British cities. 

The full report on the survey is entitled Perceptions on Islam & Muslims: A Study of the UK Population, with Hamza Andreas Tzortzis as the senior researcher. It can be downloaded (albeit not in a very printer-friendly form) from:   

http://www.iera.org.uk/downloads/iERA_NonMuslimPerceptionsOnIslam_and_Muslims_ResearchReport.pdf

The enquiry covers similar ground, but in rather more detail, as the YouGov poll for the Exploring Islam Foundation which we have already featured on the British Religion in Numbers website (on 8 June).

However, as iERA notes on page 5, the results of the two investigations differ in various ways. iERA attributes this to the methodological inferiority of YouGov’s approach, not least the fact that it uses a panel (deemed by iERA to constitute a self-selecting sample), obtained a low response rate and employed only closed questions.

80% of the iERA sample had no or very little knowledge of Islam, with 17% having basic knowledge and 3% a lot. 40% did not know who Allah is, 36% did not know who the Prophet Mohammed was, and just 20% had come into contact with the Koran (compared with 95% for the Bible).

Only 14% had been taught or actively sought information about Islam, in contrast to the 84% who had not. 76% had never spoken to a Muslim about Islam and 71% had never seen or heard any dawah material. Even when exposed to such material, attitudes were more likely to remain unchanged or to worsen than to improve. 77% had no desire to learn more about Islam.

27% of respondents entertained negative perceptions of Muslims, with 55% neutral and 18% positive. Around three-quarters thought that the contribution of Islam and Muslims to Britain was either non-existent or negative; and disagreed or were neutral when asked whether Muslims positively engaged with society.

For one-third Muslims were seen as the major cause of community tension, 32% being convinced they preached hatred. 24% viewed them as terrorists, with one-fifth denying they were law-abiding and peaceful. 30% were antipathetic to Sharia law and 59% agreed that Islam oppresses women.

The commentary (pages 30-39) records the more significant breaks by demographic sub-groups, although too much significance should not be attached to these disaggregations on account of the relatively small size of the overall sample. In particular, the report inclines to make more than is advisable of replies from those aged 21-24 (of whom there cannot have been more than about 45 interviewed).

The conclusion (page 10) is: ‘The general population has displayed a negative perception concerning religion, Islam and Muslims. The dawah has had limited reach and it has not improved perceptions about Islam. There has also been a consistent trend of apparent neutrality; we believe this indicates apathy and indifference coupled with genuine ignorance about religion and specifically Islam.’ Nineteen recommendations are advanced (pages 39-45) to improve this situation.

Posted in News from religious organisations, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Trust in the Clergy

How trustworthy are the clergy, both absolutely and in relation to other professionals? Several opinion poll companies have tried to answer this question over the years, including Ipsos MORI, which has data on the extent to which Britons trust the clergy to tell the truth or not going back to 1983, some of which is abstracted at:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/documents/Table-9-1-Trust-Professions-Ipsos-MORI-1983-2009.xls

GfK Custom Research has undertaken a similar exercise annually since 2003, asking respondents whether they trust the clergy and other groups or not. But GfK has polled internationally and not just in Britain.

Most recently GfK surveyed 15 European countries (including by telephone in the UK) and the United States, Brazil, Colombia and India in February and March 2010 on behalf of the Wall Street Journal Europe, with an average of just under 1,000 interviews in each nation.

GfK has issued a press release about the 2010 survey, which will be found at:

http://www.gfknop.com/imperia/md/content/gfk_nop/newsandpressinformation/100609_pm_trust_index_2010_fin.pdf

Unfortunately, it does not feature any of the UK results. However, some of these have been made available exclusively to British Religion in Numbers by Mark Hofmans of GfK Custom Research and are quoted here with his kind permission.

Across all countries, trust in the clergy stands at 58%, the range being from 33% in France to 86% in Romania. In the UK the figure is 63%, the highest in Western Europe (and 15% above the sub-continental average), closely followed by Sweden on 62%.

But UK citizens’ trust in the clergy is far less than in doctors (85%), the army (85%), schoolteachers (84%) and policemen (73%), although it exceeds confidence in lawyers (48%), managers of large enterprises (34%), journalists (21%) and politicians (14%).  

GfK report that, internationally, trust in the clergy declined by 8% between 2009 and 2010, from 66% to 58%, and by as much as 17% in Germany, which GfK largely attributes to the adverse publicity surrounding the abuse of children and young people by Roman Catholic priests and the Church’s perceived inadequate response to these events.

In the UK the fall from 2009 to 2010 was only 3%, perhaps reflecting the fact that the Roman Catholic Church in Britain has been somewhat less caught up in the scandals than its counterparts in Ireland and continental Europe. The 66% having trust in the clergy in the UK in 2009 was also 6 points higher than in 2008.

Although somewhat less that the number of Britons telling Ipsos MORI that they trust the clergy to tell the truth (71% in 2009), and notwithstanding a continuing trickle of ‘naughty vicar’ stories in the media (the latest about sham marriages), the GfK figure of 63% in the UK having confidence in the clergy is still surprisingly high (and not far behind the United States on 69%).

How do we interpret this? Is the lingering respect for clergy a recognition of the influence which they exercise in the leadership of the local communities which they serve, or do we still derive comfort from the knowledge that the clergy of all denominations and faiths set a lead in religious commitment and moral standards which the rest of us will but imperfectly follow?

Posted in Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Citizenship Survey, 2009-10 – First Results

Detailed reporting from the 2008-09 Citizenship Survey may not yet be complete (in particular, the topic report on race, religion and equalities is still outstanding), but initial results from all four quarters of the 2009-10 survey were released by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 22 July in respect of the questions relating to empowered and active communities, community cohesion, and prejudice and discrimination.  

The 58-page report (Cohesion Research, Statistical Release 12) will be found at the following URL (with the 16 tables also separately available as Excel files):

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/citizenshipsurveyq4200910

The 2009-10 Citizenship Survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI and TNS-BMRB in England and Wales between April 2009 and March 2010. Face-to-face interviews took place with a representative core sample of 9,305 adults aged 16 and over. In addition, there were ethnic minority and Muslim booster samples (n = 5,280 and 1,555 respectively). However, the tables in this release mostly relate to England alone, and this is true of all those referred to below. We shall focus solely on those which contain breaks by religious affiliation (Christian denominations again being undifferentiated).

TABLE 2: Whereas 37% overall feel they can influence decisions affecting their local area, the figure rises to 40% among Sikhs, 46% among Muslims and 47% among Hindus. Similarly, while 20% overall consider they can influence decisions affecting Britain, the number stands at 35% for Hindus and Muslims, with 28% for Sikhs. It is not therefore the case that adherents of the major non-Christian faiths feel less empowered than Christians.

TABLE 3: 59% of all adults have participated in some form of civic engagement or formal volunteering at least once in the last year, a 3% decrease on 2008-09. The proportions are well below the norm for Muslims (45%) and Hindus (48%), and this is broadly true for each of the four constituent activity areas considered separately. Muslims’ engagement is 3 points lower than in 2008-09 and 6 points lower than in 2007-08, suggesting that there may be cause for concern about their level of integration.

TABLE 7: 85% of the whole sample consider their local area to be a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together, the range being from 80% for Buddhists and those with no religion to 90% for Muslims. The Muslim figure has steadily improved from 81% in 2005, as have the statistics for Christians (80% to 86%) and Sikhs (77% to 88%).

TABLE 9: 87% of all adults claim to identify strongly with Britain. This is also the figure for Muslims (as it was in 2008-09). This is 6% more than for Muslims who identify strongly with their neighbourhood, which is 5 points above the national average. Identification with Britain is weakest among Buddhists (75%, but a very small sub-sample) and those with no religion (84%).

TABLE 11: 80% of all respondents mix regularly (at least monthly) with people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds. This is least for Christians (77%) and greatest for Hindus (96%) and Muslims and Sikhs (94% each). Ethnicity is a major driver of these differences, 78% of whites mixing compared with 96% of ethnic minority groups. The statistics show little change from previous years. Breakdowns by sphere of mixing by religious affiliation are detailed in Table 12.

TABLE 13: 7% of the whole sample feel that racial or religious harassment is a very or fairly big problem in their local area. However, the figure rises to 13% for Hindus, 14% for Sikhs and 17% for Muslims, although in each instance the percentage is a little lower than in 2008-09. For Muslims it is 3% less than in 2007-08. Islamophobia, therefore, would appear to remain a sad fact of British life. Unfortunately, too few Jews were interviewed for them to be separately categorized (they are subsumed within ‘other religion’), so we cannot say from this survey whether Judeophobia is also an issue.

Posted in Official data, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Turbulent Times

BRIN readers keen to understand the changing nature of the British Jewish community and its leadership since 1990 will find helpful a book which was published by Continuum on 22 July. Entitled Turbulent Times: The British Jewish Community Today, it has been written by Keith Kahn-Harris and Ben Gidley (ISBN 978-1-8471-4476-8, £19.99, paperback, also available in hardback). It is the outcome of a research project undertaken at the Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths College, University of London. The project was funded by the Rothschild Foundation Europe, the Memorial Fund for Jewish Culture and the Economic and Social Research Council.

The central thesis of this thematically-arranged and sociologically-focused book is that, confronted by the paradox of simultaneous ubiquity and marginality, there has been a shift within Jewish communal discourse from a strategy of security and assimilation, emphasizing Anglo-Jewry’s British belonging and citizenship, to a strategy of insecurity, stressing the dangers and threats which Jews face individually and communally, including the ‘new anti-Semitism’. This shift, which Sir Jonathan Sacks is seen as instrumental in initiating, is viewed as part of a continuity-driven process of renewal in the community that has led to something of a ‘Jewish Renaissance’ in Britain. The authors therefore reach an optimistic conclusion about the future of Anglo-Jewry. They relate this to the broader transition from a monocultural to a multicultural Britain.

Although this is not a deeply quantitative work per se, the numerical decline of the Jewish community (apart from Haredi Jews), and Jewish preoccupation with survival in the face of that decline, provides the backdrop to the book. Moreover, it is underpinned by a fairly wide reading of printed and electronic sources and by interviews. Foremost among the published sources are numerous empirical social and statistical enquiries. The bibliography, therefore, is a useful guide to the post-1990 statistical literature, thereby updating Barry Kosmin’s overview of Jewish statistics which formed part of the volume on religion in the Reviews of United Kingdom Statistical Sources series which appeared in 1987.  

Especially interesting for BRIN readers will be the second chapter which highlights how social research on British Jews and Jewish institutions has been used to diagnose the problems of Anglo-Jewry, to inform policy development, and to nurture through self-criticism a climate of insecurity which was deemed necessary to motivate action to ensure Jewish survival. This process is described by the authors as the ‘reflexive turn’ in Anglo-Jewry, thereby applying the sociological concept of reflexivity which concerns the self-consciousness of individuals about their actions and their consequences. Within this context a series of major research studies is considered, including the work of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, relaunched in 1996. However, a significant limitation of reflexivity is identified as a lack of research into outmarried or non-identifying British Jews.

Posted in Historical studies, Religion in public debate | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Professor Alan Gilbert

It is with great sadness that British Religion in Numbers records the death of Professor Alan David Gilbert in hospital in Manchester on 27 July, having suffered from a serious illness for the last few months. He was just 65 years of age.

In recent times, Alan has perhaps been best-known as an outstanding academic leader, not least from his service as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania (1991-95), Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne (1996-2004) and inaugural President and Vice-Chancellor of The University of Manchester from 2004 until his retirement on 30 June 2010.

But for many of us, Alan will be best remembered as one of a new generation of social historians, others being the likes of Hugh McLeod and Jim Obelkevich, who, during the 1970s, revolutionized research and writing on what had hitherto been traditionally-conceived and narrowly-focused church history.

In Alan’s case, an important tool of the revolution was the application of (relatively simple) quantitative methods. This was admirably demonstrated in his 1973 University of Oxford DPhil thesis, completed at Nuffield College, entitled ‘The Growth and Decline of Nonconformity in England and Wales, with Special Reference to the Period Before 1850: An Historical Interpretation of Statistics of Religious Practice’. This must be one of the most frequently-cited Oxford Arts theses ever.

Some of the thesis was reworked into an acclaimed and still widely-referenced book on Religion and Society in Industrial England: Church, Chapel and Social Change, 1740-1914 (London: Longman, 1976). Simultaneously, Alan was collaborating with Robert Currie, his former doctoral supervisor, on a major religious statistics project funded by the then Social Science Research Council. This gave rise to Robert Currie, Alan Gilbert and Lee Horsley, Churches and Churchgoers: Patterns of Church Growth in the British Isles Since 1700 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977).

Alan had left Oxford in 1973 to pursue a career at the University of New South Wales. As he worked his way up the academic ladder, from Lecturer to Pro-Vice-Chancellor, his time for original academic research was inevitably squeezed. But, in addition to working on Australian history, he continued to produce the occasional essay or article on British religious history and, in 1980, a thought-provoking book, The Making of Post-Christian Britain: A History of the Secularization of Modern Society (London: Longman), of which this writer was (in retrospect) perhaps too critical in a review for the October 1982 issue of English Historical Review.

It was no more than a happy coincidence when, in 2007, one of Alan’s Manchester colleagues, Professor David Voas of the Institute for Social Change, was awarded a large grant from the Religion and Society Programme of the Arts and Humanities and Economic and Social Research Councils to launch what has become British Religion in Numbers.  

However, apprised of Manchester’s success in winning this project funding, Alan took a keen interest in our progress. In particular, he was extremely helpful in securing the copyright permissions which have enabled British Religion in Numbers to mount on the project website the complete statistical tables from Churches and Churchgoers. These can be found at:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/#ChurchesandChurchgoers

Alan’s illness and tragically early death, literally weeks after handing over the reins at The University of Manchester, deprived him of any retirement whatsoever. Scholarship will be the poorer for losing out on the new research and writing to which Alan would doubtless have devoted his energies.

At a personal level, much of my own preoccupation (some might doubtless say obsession) with the quantification of religion has been inspired by Alan’s pioneering work. My files still contain my notes on the seminar he and Currie gave at Nuffield College on 9 March 1972 on ‘Patterns of Religious Activity in England in the Nineteenth Century’, which energized me to seek out statistical evidence for my own doctoral topic.

Posted in Other | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Thought for the Day

Thought for the Day is the ‘pause’ in BBC Radio 4’s prime-time flagship morning news and current affairs programme Today when invited guests reflect on a topical issue from a religious standpoint. The feature is forty years old this year. With each reflection just three minutes in length, few radio broadcasts have acquired such disproportionate significance during recent decades.

Long regarded as a de facto part of the ‘God Slot’, or religious programming, the series has attracted increasing controversy for its persistent exclusion of members of non-religious communities and for being tantamount to a ‘religious monopoly’. The dispute is symptomatic of wider questions surrounding the place of religious broadcasting and of religious speech in an increasingly pluralist and multicultural society.

As a contribution to this ongoing debate about Thought for the Day, the think-tank Ekklesia has commissioned Lizzie Clifford to research a new paper entitled ‘Thought for the Day: Beyond the God-of-the-Slots’. This is substantially based on a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of a representative sample of 72 Thought for the Day scripts from twelve different weeks in 2007-09.

Through this analysis Clifford casts doubt on many of the claims made by defenders and opponents of the current format of Thought for the Day. In particular, ‘What some regard as the feature’s weakness, its attenuated theological content, can in other respects assist with bridge-building and conversation between people of different belief commitments.’

‘On the other hand, the restriction of presenters to those who represent groups with a long-established liturgical and doctrinal base seems unnecessary, given that the actual content of their scripts does not always make such a requirement. Humanists and those from “alternative” religious backgrounds also deserve to be heard.’

The paper further provides evidence about the presenters of the more than 900 Thought for the Day broadcasts during the past three years.

In terms of faith background, 78% of presenters were Christians, 8% Jews, 4% Muslims, 4% Sikhs, 3% Hindus and 2% Buddhists. Relative to the 2001 census of population of the UK, and excluding those with no religious affiliation or none stated, Christians were under-represented as presenters (93% being their expected share, given Thought for the Day’s current brief).

By contrast, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists were over-represented in leading Thought for the Day, with the representation of Muslims nearly right in terms of the census (although their numbers have increased considerably since that time).

As regards gender, 79% of presenters were male and 21% female. This distribution perhaps reflects the gender balance in the media overall, and in the composition of various ecclesiastical hierarchies, but it clearly under-represents the contribution which women make to faith overall. On nearly all indicators of belief and most measures of practice, they are consistently shown as being more religious or spiritual than men. 

Clifford’s report can be downloaded from:

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/thought_for_the_day/main_report

Posted in Religion in public debate, Religion in the Press, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments