Spiritual Struggles of Nones and ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’ (SBNRs)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigates the spiritual struggles of Nones and SBNRs. The author(s) has collected and analyzed compelling interview data, and the conclusions are appropriate and convincing. The paper topic itself is important and worthy of research. My main suggestion (and problem) with the paper is with its organization and layout. The Literature Review, which may appear to some reviewers as altogether absent, seems to be hidden within the Results section. These should be separate sections of the paper. The author also continually cites their own work (e.g. "Removed for peer-review"), but it is unclear whether this constitutes the author's previously published work (in which case there may be nothing new in this paper) or an unnecessary and redundant citation of the present research.

Other points and suggestions are below: 

Major points: 

Line 20: I got hung up on the first line of the paper. Do all people really have spiritual struggles? How do you know? Is there a more nuanced way to express Pargament's (2005) claim? 

Lines 43-44: Are Nones really set to surpass Roman Catholics and Evangelicals? Pew's research has shown that while Nones are growing in the US, they are still projected to decline as a percentage of the global population. 

See https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

Lines 51 and onward: The Data and Methods section is written more in the manner of personal narrative than social scientific reporting. I'd encourage the author to revise this section more in accordance with the standards of the discipline and explain how/when the respondents were contacted, incentivized, selected, interviewed, etc. 

Line 108 and onward: The Results section is confusing. On the one hand, plenty of well-chosen, respected articles and books are introduced which could and probably do back the author's findings.

On the other hand, however, a Results section should include mainly, if not strictly, the results of the interviews the author conducted (rather than interspersing them throughout with other citations). The effect, in my estimation, is a bit of a jumbled combined Results/Lit Review that makes it unclear what other researchers have found in concert with or opposition to the author. The numerous references to the author's own work (e.g. "Removed for peer-review") are unnecessary and redundant, unless there are no new findings in this paper. 

I strongly suggest a revised manuscript, one which is organized differently and contains a separate Literature Review prior to the author's own new Results. 

Minor points: 

Line 106: "interviewees" should be possessive and have an apostrophe

Line 114: "seculars" should be "secular" to keep adjectives consistent

Line 266: A period precedes the list of citations but should only be at the end. 

Line 282: The year (2017) should be placed immediately after "Woodhead" earlier in the sentence. The same applies for Taylor (2007) in lines 289-290.

Needed references for inclusion:

Houtman, Dick and Stef Aupers. 2007. “The Spiritual Turn and the Decline of Tradition: The Spread of Post-Christian Spirituality in 14 Western Countries, 1981–2000.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(3):305–20.

Huss, Boaz. 2014. “Spirituality: The Emergence of a New Cultural Category and Its Challenge to the Religious and the Secular.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 29(1):47–60.

McClure, Paul K. and Lindsay R. Wilkinson. 2020 “Attending Substance Abuse Groups and Identifying as Spiritual but Not Religious.” Review of Religious Research. 62(2):197-218.

Author Response

Line 20: Given that Pargament is well-known for his work on spiritual struggle, it seemed sufficient to mention him here as main resource. I have further nuanced this saying, but I already had clarified what spiritual struggles are in following sentences to show why it can be contended as an altogether human phenomenon.

As far as citing my own work, I was advised by the academic editor to do so. I am happy to have those references modified or removed.  To clarify: The interviews were formerly analyzed by the author from the perspective of belief (author 2014) but now the data has been re-analyzed in an entirely different way, i.e., from the perspective of spiritual struggle. So these results are new, not from author's previous works on SBNRs. I will accept the academic editor's decision on how to cite the author's previous works.

Re organization and layout: I appreciate and have learned from the social scientific method and ways of organizing research.  However, while my work is almost always interdisciplinary, my primary field is systematic/theological/pastoral and my organization and layout are influenced by and conversant with that field.  Given that this journal is both interdisciplinary and focused in part on theology, I felt my organization and approach were appropriate.  A literature review in my field is usually done in context, rather than as a separate category. Also, "results" is not entirely appropriate to a paper from a theological perspective because this field is more humanities-based rather than a clear-cut social-scientific evidence-based research approach. After consulting with the academic editor, we decided I should walk a "middle road" between the two approaches, and that is what I tried to do. 

Line 51 and onward: I am rewriting this to make it less a narrative. However it should be noted,  few theologians use qualitative analysis (although many pastoral theologians do venture there) or social science methods, and so this type of narrative would be more understandable in the author's field. Nevertheless, this section is made more apparently a social scientific approach since that is what the author used. 

Line 43-44: Author was referring to the US, but appreciates that the US trend is not necessarily fixed and may not apply globally. More clarify is added here as well as the reference.

Additional references cited by reviewer are appreciated and included.

Minor points, lines 106 does not seem to contain "interviewees"; perhaps numbering was changed by copy editor. Feel free to correct. Line 114 is corrected. Line 266 does not show the issue; perhaps numbering was changed and, if so, the correction should be made.  Line 282 is corrected. Lines 289 to-90 are corrected.

In consultation with the academic editor, the results section was allowed as it fits with the approach and style of author's field. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This article on the spiritual struggles of SBNR Nones offers much insight into a timely topic. It reports that SBNR Nones struggle above all with issues related to self and self-in-relation. Its best qualities are its research design, methodology and presentation of examples and illustrative quotes.

Suggestions

The results section includes material that belongs elsewhere. Sections 3.1 and 3.2, "The Nones" and "Nones as Spiritual but not Religious," strike me as background information. The results section, for the purposes of this article, really doesn't begin until Section 3.3 "Spiritual Struggles." The results section also includes speculations and future predictions that should be moved to the discussion/conclusion section.

Section 3.4, "Spiritual Growth," is unclear to me. I expected to read about how SBNR Nones have overcome their unique challenges of self and self-in-relation. With the exception of the example of Connie Buchholz, this section was about was how SBNR Nones made peace with their transition from religion to None-dom, leaving their religious struggles behind. Because it is about religious struggles and the transition to None-dom, perhaps the results section should start with this subsection, rather than end with it.

Finally, while the conclusions are supported by the results, I think the conclusion could be strengthened, particularly demonstrating the importance of this study.

Author Response

Re organization and layout: I appreciate and have learned from the social scientific method and ways of organizing research. However, while my work is almost always interdisciplinary, my primary field is systematic/theological/pastoral and my organization and layout are influenced by and conversant with that field. Given that this journal is both interdisciplinary and focused in part on theology, I felt my organization and approach were appropriate. A literature review in my field is usually done in context, rather than as a separate category. Also, "results" is not entirely appropriate to a paper from a theological perspective because this field is more humanities-based rather than a clear-cut social-scientific evidence-based research approach. After consulting with the academic editor, we decided I should walk a "middle road" between the two approaches, and that is what I tried to do.

I did take the reviewer's advice, however, and move some sections around, also clarifying in places, and strengthening the conclusion to emphasize the importance of the topic.