The Theme of Social Cohesion in Religious Education Policies and Practices: An Analysis of England, Japan, and Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The paper analyses the curricula and accompanying didactic recommendations for Religious Education (RE) in England, Japan, and Italy in view of their relevance to social cohesion.

The study's strength lies in the comparative analysis of thematically relevant curriculum content and its diverse implementations in the reviewed countries. This approach enhances the reader’s understanding of the role of RE in promoting social cohesion and shows potential ways for further development of RE as a school subject.

 General concept comments

 Article

Of the essentials of social cohesion listed in the specialised literature, the study highlights inclusion, the sense of belonging, shared values and the orientation towards the common good.

Methodologically, the study follows a qualitative approach of critically analysing documents on RE. Three research questions guide the study but without hypotheses, with the results systematically assigned to these questions in the concluding chapter, offering a coherent and structured analysis.

The references cited in the study are pertinent and include over 20 publications from the past six years.

 Review

The research starts with presenting six supranational recommendations and initiatives related to social cohesion and RE. They show the importance of certain global political events at the beginning of the 21st century for a constructive approach in religious education to political and social problems, the promotion of human rights values, active democratic citizenship and the intercultural/interreligious dialogue.

The central part of this comprehensive work deals with the different conceptions and attributions of teaching about religion/religions in view of social cohesion. The differences are illustrated with quotations from the analysed documents alongside critical comments by the author.

The elaboration of country-specific social cohesion priorities based on historical or current social developments and events is very helpful. Weak points and aims are well identified and subjected to critical analysis. However, the primal objective of the respective RE is less clearly highlighted.

 The comprehensive conclusions show a fundamental weakness in all the forms of RE: religions are presented in an essentialist manner like monolithic blocks, without much consideration for intra-religious diversity and variety. On the other hand, religions and worldviews are usually described or compared from the perspective of a dominant religion and thus prematurely categorised/standardised. This affects all aspects, not just the area of social cohesion.

 It is also essential to recognise that religions, and thus the respective RE, can be (but not automatically are) tools to promote or defend against restrictions on social cohesion. The decisive factor is what the target group - the individual - makes of what they have learned and hopefully reflected on.

The author's conclusion makes this clear: it is not a mere 'learning from religion' but a well-founded 'learning from the academic study of religion' that can make RE a subject that develops and deepens desirable social attitudes.

 Overall, the study advances current knowledge in this area and provides an interesting basis for further research on the relevance of an academically profound RE.

Author Response

I thanks the reviewer for its positive comments and its careful analysis of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

first of all, the fact that manuscript should be reconsidered after major revisions does not mean that your paper is poor quality. It means it has to be improved to attract more scientific public to read it and take into consideration in the future. The weakness that you should paid attention and improve it are:

1. The abstract should be rewritten. In this version, it is already used in the Introduction chapter.

2. Keywords also has to be improved and rewritten: there is too many phrase and too little clear key points. For example: curriculum, etc.

3. The Introduction lacks brief and clear history of "social cohesion" term. It is basically field of social psychology, not economics, nor religion. You should bare this in mind. It is not forbidden to rely on Economic Commission definition, but is this the right chioce?

4. However, if it is, there is a key problem of your manuscript: lack of conception and systematization of knowledge. Your description of Religious Education from the perspective of three completely different countries is basically qualitative. If you want to compare them, not only describe them, than you have to find some dimensions and parameters for analysis and comparation. Either four that you have already mentioned (inclusion, sense of belonging, shared values, and orientation to the common good), either to find some additional and more appropriate. Do not feel lack of motivation to improve your manuscript in this way, it is very important for its' improvement. Is is possible that you are not so close with psychology and sociology, but do not be afraid to pay more attention to the attitudes about social cohesion in these two sciences.

5. The above mention comparation should take a place in the Discussion chapter. After that, the Conclusion chapter should give key points of your findings. Only that way your paper could be considered as an Article. Otherwise, it belongs to the Review category and then it should be prepared according to that propositions. 

6. Also, it would be wise to remove pictures from the body text since they have no information value: simply one sentence with the reference is enough.

7. The last remark is the fact that use of the pronouns "I" and "We" in the scientific paper is not desirable. The paper should be written in the objective and neutral manner, completely if it attends to be scientific.

It will be great pleasure to get improved version of your manuscript, since your theme is very interesting and relevant for Religions. Wishes you very the best.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for its careful review, suggestions and encouraging words.

Here are my point to point responses to the comments:

1. The abstract should be rewritten. In this version, it is already used in the Introduction chapter.

Done.

2. Keywords also has to be improved and rewritten: there is too many phrase and too little clear key points. For example: curriculum, etc.

Done.

3. The Introduction lacks brief and clear history of "social cohesion" term. It is basically field of social psychology, not economics, nor religion. You should bare this in mind. It is not forbidden to rely on Economic Commission definition, but is this the right chioce?

I do not completely agree with the comments, since the 2023 review I rely upon is not based on economics but summarizes the very complex debate so far. Nonetheless, I've added a very short history of the definitions, in order not to lengthen an already long article.

4. However, if it is, there is a key problem of your manuscript: lack of conception and systematization of knowledge. Your description of Religious Education from the perspective of three completely different countries is basically qualitative. If you want to compare them, not only describe them, than you have to find some dimensions and parameters for analysis and comparation. Either four that you have already mentioned (inclusion, sense of belonging, shared values, and orientation to the common good), either to find some additional and more appropriate. Do not feel lack of motivation to improve your manuscript in this way, it is very important for its' improvement. Is is possible that you are not so close with psychology and sociology, but do not be afraid to pay more attention to the attitudes about social cohesion in these two sciences.

I do agree with your point. That part was actually lacking a robust methodological background. I’ve drawn from a influential methodology in the field of RE studies, I have addressed more explicitly the four dimensions of social cohesion in the comparison, and highlighted some conclusions based on the comparison.

 

5. The above mention comparation should take a place in the Discussion chapter. After that, the Conclusion chapter should give key points of your findings. Only that way your paper could be considered as an Article. Otherwise, it belongs to the Review category and then it should be prepared according to that propositions. 

 

Done. I’ve separated the discussions and the conclusion parts.

 

6. Also, it would be wise to remove pictures from the body text since they have no information value: simply one sentence with the reference is enough.

Done.

7. The last remark is the fact that use of the pronouns "I" and "We" in the scientific paper is not desirable. The paper should be written in the objective and neutral manner, completely if it attends to be scientific.

I actually do not agree on this point. In all my publications (one is already published in RELIGIONS) I have used “I” and “WE”. Since is quite burdensome to make these change I’d like to ask the editors if this matter of style is really necessary.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fine article. The author ought consider spending a bit more time on rendering and referencing a few more analytical-critical articles by RE-scholars as regards the supranational (and national, e.g. AAR) e.g. OSCE recommendations/guidelines. It gives, though, a fine overview of the general tendencies as well as a fine critical examination of how the supranational is played out in the chosen national contexts. Does not need a lot of editing.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for its positive review.

Here's my response to its one comment:

• The author ought consider spending a bit more time on rendering and referencing a few more analytical-critical articles by RE-scholars as regards the supranational (and national, e.g. AAR) e.g. OSCE recommendations/guidelines.

I would have appreciated if the reviewer would suggest some of these analytical-critical articles , as I had hard time find many articles on this topic ( and I mean from the perspective of the academic study of religions). Nonetheless, I have added some information and references. However, I put them in the conclusion and not in section 2, since I preferred not to anticipate the critical conclusions I draw in the discussion and in the conclusions.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The last remark is the fact that use of the pronouns "I" and "We" in the scientific paper is not desirable. The paper should be written in the objective and neutral manner, completely if it attends to be scientific.

I actually do not agree on this point. In all my publications (one is already published in RELIGIONS) I have used “I” and “WE”. Since is quite burdensome to make these change I’d like to ask the editors if this matter of style is really necessary.

I still thin that instead of "I" or "We" should stand "The author/s", but according to your information, I will ask the Editor.