Researching rituals: on the use of participatory action research in liturgical studies

Dr Cas WepenerBuvton, Faculty of Theology

Stellenbosch University---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstrak

Daar is ‘n oplewing in navorsing oor die liturgie. Verskeie faktore het aanleiding gegee tot ‘n hernude belangstelling in die liturgie enersyds, en andersyds ‘n opbloei in liturgiese navorsing. In ooreenstemming met hierdie oplewing bestaan die behoefte aan navorsingsmetodologie binne die veld van die Liturgiek. Die oogmerk van hierdie artikel is om kwalitatiewe navorsingsmetodologie te verken, deelnemendeaksie-navorsing in die besonder. Die bedoeling van hierdie artikel is om slegs ‘n voorlopige verkenning te maak van hoe hierdie navorsingsmetodologie spesifiek aangepas kan word vir gebruik in liturgiese navorsing. Met die oog hierop word verskeie benaderings binne die veld van die Liturgiek eerstens verken. Vervolgens word enkele ontwikkelinge in die area van liturgiese navorsing op die tafel geplaas, ten einde die kompleksiteit van die ondersoeksobjek waarop navorsing stuit en wat deur die navorsingsmetodologie verreken moet word, te belig. Vanuit hierdie gegewens word daar uiteindelik enkele praktiese voorstelle aangaande die gebruik van deelnemendeaksie-navorsing in liturgiese ondersoeke gemaak.

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

1. INTRODUCTION1

There is currently a great interest in the liturgy and accordingly also in liturgical research. Many reasons can be given for this state of affairs, inter alia the work done by the Liturgical Movement, ecumenical work on the subject, as well as the discovery of the formative power of the liturgy in the life of congregations and individuals (identity, ethics, etc). In line with this renewed interest, a whole surge of liturgical research is currently being undertaken, also in (South) Africa. If a study does not explicitly take the liturgy as its point of departure, then the liturgy often features in the conclusion. The aim of this article is to explore qualitative research methodology, specifically participatory action research (PAR). The contribution of this article is to demonstrate, in particular, that this research methodology can be adopted for use within the field of liturgical inquiries. According to Post (2001a:18), a big challenge to the discipline of Liturgy today lies in the terrain of theory and method. With this aim of exploring the applicability of PAR methodology in mind, one relatively new approach to the field of liturgy will firstly be investigated. After that some new developments within the domain of liturgical research will be considered. This will help to highlight the complexities a researcher faces when engaging scientifically with this object of research. All these complexities must be taken into account when the liturgy is being studied in an integral manner. Finally some practical suggestions regarding liturgical research methodology will be made. As a whole this article is a very preliminary attempt at an exploration of these methodological considerations.

1

Ammerman (1998:16) cites Browning who says that, if we believe that God is actively working in the world, and is not only a afterthought to explain what is happening in the world, then the description of what is happening in the world is a theological task. The use of a research method such as PAR within the field of theology/liturgy is thus not a process preceding the actual theologising, but an integral part of the whole process of theologising. Therefore it is imperative to rethink our research methodologies every so often as part of the task of being (practical) theologians.

2. APPROACHES WITHIN THE FIELD OF LITURGY

There are numerous methodological points of departure in research within the domain of the liturgy2, but the final choice of a certain approach will depend upon what the researcher sees as the object of inquiry. If the liturgy is understood as a complex web of Christian rituals and symbols, and rituals and symbols are seen as the building blocks of the liturgy, then approaches from disciplines with similar interests (also taking symbols and rituals as objects of research) might be of value. Various liturgists hold this view nowadays, namely that the study of liturgy is the study of Christian rituals and symbols (see Barnard 2000), and accordingly the heuristics of disciplines such as Ethnography and Cultural Anthropology are used in research. This is also the line that this article chooses to pursue, and as such views rituals as the object of research and the so-called liturgia condenda or "liturgy in the making" as the aim. With this in mind a research methodology is needed which can document the rituals as well as the ways in which the rituals are appropriated by the participants. This information can then be used within a larger liturgical research design, for example, the design developed by Post called “Interferention and intuition” (Post 2001; Wepener 2004:34-37). The aim of this article is not, however, to present such a research design, but only a preliminary exploration of the research methodology by which rituals as objects for research can be documented. Such an endeavour, that is the documentation of rituals, is a rather complex and painstaking exercise.

3. THE COMPLEXITY OF THE RESEARCH OBJECT

Although there is currently a movement away from fixed definitions for phenomena such as rituals in favour of a tendency rather to just designate a cluster of qualities3, a preliminary definition of '‘ritual’' will be given here. Such a definition is helpful in order to clarify what is meant by ritual in this context, and thereby also what exactly must be documented during the field work, so that this specific phenomenon can be studied.

The definition adopted for this article is: “Rituals are often repeated, self-evident, symbolic actions, that are always interactive and corporeal, sometimes accompanied by texts and formulas, aimed at the transfer of values in the individual or the group, and of which the form and content are always culture,

2

context and time bound, so that the involvement in the reality which is presented in the ritual remains a dynamic given” (Wepener 2004:74). With this definition in mind, some remarks regarding the object of research can be made.

First the whole enacted ritual must be described. In the past liturgical research often meant an in-depth study of a book, for example, the Roman missal or Handboek vir die erediens. Today, especially for liturgists who choose a ritual-liturgical or anthropological approach, not only the words but also the whole ritual must be studied, and therefore firstly documented. Such documentation will therefore include words, deeds and every single piece of information that will add to clarifying the meaning of the ritual. Here the whole sensory interplay is of great importance, and therefore a researcher must take into account everything he or she sees, hears, smells, feels or tastes during the performance (see, among others, Lukken 1989 and Lukken 1999:135-138). According to Post (2001b), this will entail examining the enacted ritual within the matrix of, among other things, both primary and secondary sources; cult and culture; continuity and change; appropriation and designation – in other words, the whole enacted ritual within its multiple contexts must be documented and studied in an integral way. With regards to the study of ritual Stringer states, “The first thing that any anthropologist will be interested in is a detailed study of what actually happens during the rite itself”, and later, “…this has now become common, almost obligatory, to start any analysis of a rite with a very detailed account of what actually happens” (Stringer 1989:511-512). This detailed account is thus the starting point of the research and entails that the researcher will go to where the action is performed, participate in it, observing it and documenting it, in order to reveal also the not so obvious.

In addition to such a description of the enacted rituals, the various ways of appropriation of these rituals by the participants must also be collected. Traditionally ecclesial authorities formulated the rituals or the liturgy of churches, which was then usually collected in one authoritative book, for example The book of common prayer, the Missal or the Handboek vir die erediens. These liturgical (re)sources are very valuable and the emphasis which is placed upon the right doctrine must be applauded. The rituals as prescribed in these books can nonetheless sometimes become separated from the people who enact these rituals. Therefore the way in which the participants appropriate what they do is a very important source for the study of rituals. There must be some kind of correlation between what participants want (appropriation) and what authorities think they should do (designation).

Such an approach in which the anthropological dimension is taken seriously often elicits some theological criticism. The fear of consumerism, just giving people what they want and like, instead of only and exactly what the Bible teaches, is often aired. This can be a serious problem, but one that can be overcome within the research design by incorporating the theological steering concept of liturgical inculturation4. It is not possible to go deeply into the notion of

3

liturgical inculturation here. Basically the concept entails a critical-reciprocal interaction or enrichment between cult/liturgy and culture in such a way that a whole new entity comes into being, namely an inculturated liturgy. Chupungco’s (1982:81) often-quoted straightforward example sheds light here, namely that the process of liturgical inculturation entails that A (liturgy) + B (culture) = C (a new entity/inculturated liturgy) and not A + B = AB. In this process of liturgical inculturation the liturgy criticises some aspects of the culture and embraces others and vice versa. Such an approach makes it possible to rethink, reformulate and live anew the Christian faith in each human culture (see Bosch 1991:452), and for the Christian liturgy this means that its rituals and symbols can be an adequate expression of people’s praise without the fear of consumerism.

What is important then, when rituals are being researched in the field, is that the research methodology must be able to incorporate the documentation of both the enactment, as well as the appropriation of the ritual by the participants. Rituals are, however, always embedded within a larger cultural system. In any context there is a very close link between cult/liturgy and context/culture, and therefore the immediate culture in which the rituals are found must also be described (on the link between cult and culture, see Barnard 2001; 2002a and 2002b). It would, however, be impossible to document this “culture” in extenso, and therefore selection is inevitable. Demographic data can be of help here, as well participants’ own view on the culture. If, for example, the research question is “In what way do rituals function as generators of social capital with regards to poverty in the Paarl region (South Africa)?”, it is necessary to be able to locate the collected ritual data within the larger South African “culture of poverty”, as well as specifically within the smaller “culture of poverty” of the Paarl region, as well as the “context of poverty” of the specific faith community in which the ritual was documented. Thus, along with the actual performed ritual and the appropriation of the ritual by the participants, the qualification '‘within its multiple contexts'’ should be added here.

The aim of using PAR in this kind of liturgical research is thus, among other things, the documentation of the research object and its cultural setting and ascertaining the nature of the appropriation of the object by the respondents. All the ritual data must be collected by a participant observer with what Lukken calls a '‘tamed intuition’' (Lukken 1997:145), so that the data can be incorporated into a larger liturgical-scientific research design5.

4. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH WITHIN LITURGICAL INQUIRIES

PAR6 is a method that breaks through a modernist-positivist epistemology, in which a subject-object split is kept in place, and replaces it with a humanistic approach7. This is attained by the traditionally uninvolved researcher participating in the whole research process, and the traditionally silent respondents being

4

given a voice along with the researchers. This means that there is collaboration between subject and object in the generation of knowledge8. But what exactly is meant by PAR? Some additional remarks will shed some light on the term.

The participatory part of the term refers to the researcher and the respondents who both participate in the rituals and the whole research process. In the so-called non-participatory research process, the researcher does not participate in the everyday routine of the context in which the research is being conducted (see Bernard, 1988:148-179)9. The fact that the respondents also gain access to the process of generating the knowledge means that the research is more than just participatory research, but PAR10. PAR must also be distinguished from '‘action research’', which is conducted in order to find a solution to a specific problem. The latter type of research is thus aimed at problem solving and not on theorising (see Huysamen 1994:176–177). Hendriks (2004:217&219) quotes De Vos describing “participatory action research as an alternative system of knowledge production, based on the subjects’ involvement in decisions regarding the questions asked”, and also as “a research process where people involved in the situation being studied, are enabled (in partnership with researchers and other role-players) to become actively involved in collective efforts to address and solve their social problems”. Therefore PAR is a research methodology that empowers local communities.

As has already been stated, such an approach has scientific and political consequences. Through the involvement of both researcher and subject the power inherent in the research process is shared between these two role-players (see Babbie & Mouton 2001:58-59). There are a whole series of techniques that can be used in this kind of research – Hendriks (2004:219-221) gives a list of fifteen features of PAR. In this article, however, we are specifically looking at PAR as pertaining to the study of rituals, and with this in mind some observations regarding research techniques will now be made. It is important to remember that this is not a blueprint and that different kinds of rituals can often mean that different kinds of instruments will be needed, and often specific methods for the collection of data have to be developed in the field itself. Here only some suggestions will be made that can be used, but which will often be in need of adaptation for a specific context. The following techniques are especially useful when rituals are the object of research.

4.1. Categorising

A first instrument that can be adapted according to need comes from the ritual expert Ronald Grimes. Grimes (1995:24–38) gives a series of questions in a chapter entitled “Mapping the field of ritual”, which a researcher can ask in the field concerning the rituals encountered. Along with these questions, he also presents six headings under which the ritual data can be systematised, namely ritual space, ritual time, ritual objects, ritual sounds and language, ritual identity and, lastly, ritual action. According to Swinkels and Post (2003:224), Grimes’s

5

headings “are known in both anthropology and liturgical studies circles and they form the basis of almost all ethnographic instrumentation”. A participant observer can use these categories in his/her field notes when the ritual data are being recorded.

In the field a researcher may experience that it is not unproblematic to systematise a ritual or liturgical celebration neatly into these six categories, because in some way or another they are all interlinked and overlap. So, for example, the ritual space (where precisely everyone is sitting or standing) is closely linked with the ritual identity of all the participants. It is, however, exactly in the attempt to separate these elements that these links and meanings come to the fore more noticeably.

4.2 Thick descriptions

So-called '‘thick descriptions’' (see Geertz 1973:3-30) can be applied as a good method to record ritual activity. Thick descriptions entail highly detailed accounts of what has been experienced in the field, so that one short interaction can cover a couple of pages of '‘thick’' descriptions and the analysis of the interaction can be a very complex exercise (Bailey 1996:4). The term itself Geertz (see 1973:3-30) borrows from Gilbert Ryle, who distinguishes between a '‘thin description’' and a '‘thick description’'. Where a thin description will, for example, only record that a boy has twitched his eye, a thick description will record that he is “practicing a burlesque of a friend faking a wink to deceive an innocent into thinking a conspiracy is in motion” (Geertz 1973:6-7)11.

When making thick descriptions of rituals, '‘mental notes’' (remembering who is usually present, who talks first, who leaves first, etc) and '‘jotted notes’' (quotes, details which are easily forgotten, personal emotions, etc) are also helpful. In addition to this a researcher can also jot down his/her own biases which they are aware of, as well as personal interpretations of what is happening. The interpretations can later be compared with respondents’ own interpretations of what they do/did. A last recommendation in this regard is to write down what has been experienced as soon as possible. Preferably this should be done during the ritual activity itself, but if a researcher is convinced that this will elicit too much reactivity from the participants, it should be done as soon as possible afterwards.

In addition to thick descriptions of the rituals, audio recordings of the words that are being spoken or sung during the performance can also be made. What is important to note here is that the style in which the words are being uttered, like the preaching style in which a sermon is being delivered, adds to the meaning of the words. These paralinguistic aspects should also be recorded and helpful information in this regard can be found in the field of so-called performance theory12.

4.3 Visual media

6

In this subsection only the use of photography13 as medium in the research of rituals will be discussed. It is, however, important to take into account that every visual medium that is used in the documentation of information, for example video recordings or photography, requires a distinct approach in documentation, analysis and interpretation.

The researcher/photographer does often not realise that he/she is steering the whole photographic process by, among other things, deciding what to photograph without disclosing personal preferences and biases. The whole perception that photographs present the truth must be challenged, since photographs are context bound and there are numerous role players involved in the generation of meaning from photographs14.

In order to try and overcome some of these obstacles, the photographer can try and photograph the subject matter from the perspective of the cultural lens of those who are being photographed. This will be an attempt to photograph the people participating in their ritual in the way they see themselves, and not solely from the perspective of the researcher. Furthermore, images of chaos should make way for images portraying a community’s creative intelligence, and for this the researcher should try to understand the culture. In addition, the taking of the photos should be guided by theory, so that the information can be generated, organised and presented in a way that can be verbalised (Harper 1994:408-410). A useful technique to stimulate cooperation between researcher and subject and to break through the one-way traffic from researcher to subject is to show photographs of the subjects to the subjects themselves in order to stimulate dialogue (Ball & Smith 1992:61). A last technique that will be mentioned here is one that tries to deconstruct the existing mode of documentary photography which often just focuses on the weird or the strange, by placing the photographs in juxtaposition to other fragments from the culture. All these techniques are nothing more than attempts to make a researcher more critical and less naive, and to confront ideology (Harper 1994:411).

The aforementioned observations can help to avoid many obstacles and make the whole process less subjective. Nevertheless, it is important to take cognisance of the fact, firstly, that the use of visual media within the research process is a whole field of study on its own, and secondly, that different types of visual media need different approaches.

4.4 Interviews and focus group activities

After the ritual data have been recorded (thick description, photographs, etc), it is also necessary to involve the participants/respondents in this process15. As Victor Turner (1969:7) remarked himself concerning his own field work: “But it is one thing to observe people performing the stylized gestures and singing the cryptic songs of ritual performances and quite another to reach an adequate

7

understanding of what the movements and words mean to them”. Respondents can help to highlight important details that the researcher could have overlooked, and also help to understand how they appropriate (see Frijhoff 1997) the rituals in which they participate. But besides the understanding of appropriation, these activities also help to ensure that power in the research process (see Babbie & Mouton 2001:61) is being distributed equally between researcher and those who are being researched. Such activities are important in all the phases of the research, from the initial planning up until the dissemination of the results and implementation of strategies. This is also typical of PAR, because as a research methodology it also concerns itself with productive work (Babbie & Mouton 2001:62). Two helpful techniques are interviews and focus group activities. Here only some aspects regarding these techniques will now be discussed.

There are different kinds of interviews that can be used; however, the more informal types are preferred in PAR16. Here researchers can especially make use of informal unstructured and semi-structured interviews. Along with this it is important to know that every single conversation (telephone, at tea after the service, etc) is important and should be recorded. The sum total of individual interviews, however, is not equal to the collective voice of, for example, the congregation participating in the rituals/liturgy. Therefore focus group activities are also important, such as time lines, space tours and group discussions about the rituals (see Ammerman et al 1998; Hendriks 2004:231-234).

When interviews and group activities are being conducted, it is important that the composition of the group and the selection of interviewees are representative of the congregation or group as a whole17. So, for example, Stringer (1999:64) critiques Victor Turner’s field work on the rituals of the Ndembu of Zambia as he was too much indebted to only one ritual expert, namely Muchona the Hornet, who quite obviously made up a lot of what he told Turner right there and then.

4.5 Ethics and politics

Saying a few words on ethics is important, especially because of the nature of rituals. Rituals are very personal and private activities that reveal much about the participants themselves. It is for that reason important to first obtain informed consent (see Punch 1994:90; Huysamen 1994:180-181), despite the fact that some scholars object to this, saying that it will make the observation unnatural (Huysamen 1994:179). Some argue that total honesty can hurt people, because of the nature of what is sometimes revealed through research and that some degree of misleading is helpful (Bailey 1996:12-13), and therefore the true reasons for the research is only revealed after the research has been done. The truth and end of the process thus make up for the lie with which the process was started (Babbie 1989:476-477). Nevertheless, misleading people goes against the basic rights of groups and individuals and will be contrary to the message of the Gospel. Furthermore, informed participation by respondents is crucial as an addition to the documented ritual data, and their voices are an integral addition in

8

the process of the generation of meaning and an important correction to the perspective of the researcher. In this regard Thumma (1998:203) comments: “The best way to correct for the inadequacies of observation is to talk with those you have been watching”. Ethics and reliability thus overlap in PAR in that consent (the ethical dimension) and informed participation (the scientific dimension) combine to break through the traditional rational discourse of one dominant researcher by also giving outsiders a voice. When observing rituals within a congregation, it is important to gain informed consent via the correct channels (eg church council, leaders, ministers) and make sure that members participating in rituals know that they are being observed.

Other ethical considerations include safety and confidentiality, but only the latter will be touched upon here. Concerning confidentiality,18 it is important to judge carefully whether revealing the identity of an individual or group will be beneficial or not for the particular group. It is, however, often helpful to make private knowledge public in order for healing to take place (Ammerman et al 1998:9). These ethical considerations are only the tip of the iceberg, and any researcher should make a careful study of all the possible ethical implications of his/her study.

According to Grimes (1990:214), reflexive ethnographies reveal how field workers are bearers of dominant culture who are in actual fact themselves constructing those whom they are studying. In this regard (as has been stated numerous times in this article) dialogue is necessary between the formally schooled researchers and those with popular knowledge who are being observed in order to understand the ritual and its context (see, among others, Reason 1994:328). This is exactly what PAR aims at attaining, namely that the researcher’s perspective does not remain the dominant perspective, but that an inclusive pluriform perspective is produced by means of dialogue. This means that the researcher must remain highly sensitive to this throughout the process.

Babbie and Mouton (2001:61-62) summarise in four points the methodological and epistemological basis of PAR, showing how epistemology and ideology are inherently bound up together. The four ways in which PAR is then different to other similar methodologies are all political in nature: (i) the difference in the location of power; (ii) PAR explicitly enters the political arena; (iii) PAR is not only a methodology for science, but also for productive work and lastly (iv) PAR accentuates the importance of experiential knowing (including thinking, feeling and acting). This political dimension of PAR is one of the most important qualities of the approach which distinguishes it from other similar approaches. Babbie and Mouton (2001:59) refer to Hall, who says the research community needs to identify with those on the periphery, the poor and oppressed in society. In their book The practice of social research Babbie and Mouton (2001:59-61) also describe the historical development of the PAR research paradigm and show the differences between the northern and southern schools19. Despite the differences, they quote Whyte’s definition of PAR as one that incorporates both

9

traditions, namely: “[PAR] involves some members of the subjects of study participating actively in all phases of the process from the design of the project, through its implementation, and including the actions that come with or follow up the research”.

5. CONCLUSION

Researchers working with a ritual-liturgical perspective within the field of liturgy and who start with the actual performed ritual as object for research will do well by making use of PAR. This method, applied to the phenomenon of ritual,

1 This material is based upon work supported by the National Research Foundation under Grant number 2054070. Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and therefore the NRF does not accept any liability in regard thereto.The approach and techniques discussed in this article will be implemented in this project, specifically looking at ritual and the generation of social capital in a context of poverty in South Africa.2 The study of the liturgy is undertaken by various scholars from wide-ranging perspectives. Consequently there are also various names for the field, eg Liturgy, Liturgical Science and Liturgiology (see Grimes 1990:214). Within the field of liturgy in the Netherlands, both Protestant and Roman Catholics scholars adopt numerous approaches. Barnard, a Protestant scholar, identifies a practical theological/anthropological, a systematic, a historical as well as a biblical-theological approach (Barnard 1998:94; Barnard 2000). The Roman Catholic liturgist, Post, distinguishes between nine approaches, namely a historical, an anthropological, a semiotic, a pastoral-liturgical, a empirical-liturgical, an approach from the arts (image, music, space, bodily expression/dance), an approach from systematic theology (theology of the liturgy and sacrament theology), other approaches such as from Women Studies or Spirituality, and lastly a biblical-theological approach (Post 1995a:19–20; Post 1996:3; Post 2001).3 A good example within the domain of so-called Ritual Studies is the “qualities of ritual” of Ronald Grimes (see Grimes 1990:14).4 For more on the concept of liturgical inculturation, see also Amalorpavadass (1990), Chupungco (1982), De Klerk (2001), Lukken (1994; 1997 & 1999:127.133) and Lutheran World Federation (1998).5 For a good example of such a research design within the field of liturgy, see Post (2001b).6 There are several websites specifically devoted to PAR, of which the following are two good examples: http://www.parnet.org/ and http://www.goshen.edu/soan/soan96p.htm 7 For a diagram describing the differences between a “positivistic paradigm” and “humanistic paradigm” with regards to research, see Hendriks (2004:216).8 See in this regard the section about the history of the qualitative paradigm and the rise of PAR in Babbie and Mouton (2001:53-68). In line with this Bosch (1991:453) describes how the primary agents in the process of inculturation are the local faith community and the Holy Spirit, and not as in the past the benevolent missionary. See also Hendriks (2004:74 and 219).9 “If you make up a questionnaire in your office, send it out and wait for the mail to bring your data in, that’s not field research. If you take a random sample of a community, go door to door, and do a series of face-to-face interviews, that is field research – but it’s not participant observation. If you go to a native market in a community that you’ve never visited before, and monitor the behaviour of patrons and clients as they go through their transactions, that too is field research, but it isn’t participant observation.” See also in this regard Stewart (1998:6).10 For a discussion on these differences see, Reason (1994:327–323). 11 For a full description of this example, which is rather helpful in explaining the concept ‘thick description’, see Geertz (1973:6-7). And for a short description of different techniques as used in Congregational Studies see Hendriks (2004:231-234). 12 See for example the chart from 1912, which is currently still being used by renowned homilists such as Prof Jana Childers at the San Francisco Theological Seminary. Information obtained from a paper delivered by Prof Childers at a conference titled Homiletics and liturgy today, hosted by Buvton, Stellenbosch University (31 March 2004).

10

however, does require some special considerations. This article is a preliminary attempt to explore of some of these considerations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amalorpavadass, DS. 1990. Theological reflections on inculturation. Studia Liturgica 20:36 – 54.

Ammerman, NT, Carroll, JW, Dudley, CS & W McKinney (eds). 1998. Studying congregations: a new handbook. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Babbie, E. 1989. The practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Babbie, E & Mouton, J. 2001. The practice of social research. (With contributions by Payze Vorster Boshoff Prozesky). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Ball, MS & Smith, GWH. 1992. Analyzing visual data: qualitative research methods, vol 24. Newbury Park / London / New Delhi: Sage Publications

Barnard, M. 1998. Liturgiewetenschap als discipline, in De weg van de liturgie: tradities, achtergronden, praktijk geredigeerd door P Oskamp & N Schuman. Zoetermeer: Meinema.

13 After the discovery of photography in the nineteenth century, it was especially used in the classification of races, and photos were regarded as phenomena which portray the truth in a realistic fashion. In the twentieth century the focus of the social sciences largely shifted to social structures which are not easily photographed, and therefore the popularity of the medium within research waned. In the course of the twentieth century photography was ‘rediscovered’ as a medium, but now coupled with explanatory texts. But fully-fledged Visual Sociology only came in existence in the 1960s because of the popularity of documentary photography. This documentary photography usually dealt with social problems which sociologist regarded as central to their subject. As sociology became more scientific, photography became more artistic, and so it came about that theory about the social reality being photographed was largely negated. For example, the focus of documentary photography was on social problems, with the aim of stimulating change, but in actual fact it did the opposite. So instead of providing insights into the problems of the Third World, for example, the idea of total chaos was just reinforced by the images (see Harper 1994: 403 – 407; see also Wepener 2000:99-102). For the use of photography with liturgy see also, Post (1995b).14 See in this regard, among others Barthes (1980) and Sontag (1989:6), who says that “photographers are always imposing standards on their subjects”.15 As mentioned earlier, respondents are involved not only after the documentation of the rituals in order to document their appropriation of the rituals, but throughout the whole process, also and especially too during the formulation of the research question(s).16 Interviews will not be discussed in detail here as the possible approaches are described in almost every handbook on social research. For a very helpful discussion on some of the different types to be used within congregations along with useful tips, see Ammerman (1998).17 Once again most handbooks on this topic give very useful advice in this regard.18 Babbie (1989:475) distinguishes between confidentiality and anonymity, where the latter refers to the process of research where a particular response cannot be identified with a specific respondent.19 The southern and northern schools share the same name for their research approach, but they differ on values and ideologies, the boundaries of participation and the organization of joint inquiry (see Babbie & Mouton 2001:60).

11

Barnard, M. 2000. Liturgiek als wetenschap van christelijke riten en symbolen. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers.

Barnard, M. 2001. Dynamiek van cultus en cultuur, in Ritueel bestek. antropologische kernwoorden van de liturgie geredigeerd door M Barnard & P Post. Zoetermeer: Meinema.

Barnard, M. 2002a. Tendensen in de dynamiek van cultus en cultuur: perspectieven in de liturgiewetenschap, in Nieuwe wegen in de liturgie: de weg van de liturgie - een vervolg, geredigeerd door M Barnard & N Schuman. Zoetemeer: Meinema.

Barnard, M. 2002b. Prinses Diana als postmoderne heilige en een kerkdienst in een museum: tendensen in de dynamiek van cultus en cultuur vanuit een West-Europees perspectief. Verbum et Ecclesia 22(2): 209 - 230.

Barthes, R. 1980. Camera Lucida: reflections on photography. Translated into English by Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang.

Bailey, CA. 1996. A guide to field research. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi: Pine Forge Press.

Bernard, HR. 1988. Research methods in cultural anthropology. Newbury Park/ London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Bosch, DJ. 1991. Transforming mission: paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Chupungco, AJ. 1982. Cultural adaptation of the liturgy. New York: Paulist Press.

De Klerk, BJ. 1999. Skuldbelydenis en versoening as kommunikatiewe handeling in die liturgie van die samekoms van die lewe. Praktiese Teologie in Suid-Afrika. 14(1):23- 45.

Frijhoff, W. 1997. Toeëigening: van bezitsdrang naar betekenisgeving. Trajecta 6(2):99 - 118.

Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Grimes, RL. 1990. Ritual criticism. case studies in its practice: essays on its theory. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Grimes, RL. 1995. Beginnings in ritual studies, revised edition. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

12

Harper, D. 1994. On the authority of the image. visual methods at the crossroads, in Handbook of qualitative research, edited by NK Denzin, & YS Lincoln. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Hendriks, HJ. 2004. Studying congregations in Africa. NetAct. Wellington: Lux Verbi.

Huysamen, GK. 1994. Methodology for the social and behavioural sciences. Halfway House: Southern Book Publishers.

Lukken, G. 1989. Liturgie en zintuiglijkheid: over de betekenis van lichamelijkheid in de liturgie. Liturgiekategese. Hilversum: Gooi & Sticht.

Lukken, G. 1994. Inculturatie en de toekoms van de liturgie. Heeswijk-Dinther: Uitgeverij Abdij van Berne.

Lukken, G. 1997. Liturgiewetenschappelijk onderzoek in culturele context. Metodische verheldering en vragen. Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek 13:135 – 148.

Lukken, G. 1999. Rituelen in overvloed. Een kritische bezinning op de plaats en de gestalte van het christelijke ritueel in onze cultuur. Baarn: Gooi & Sticht.

Lutheran World Federation. 1998. Chicago statement on worship and culture: baptism and rites of life passage. Studia Liturgica 28, 244 – 252.

Post, PGJ. 1995a. Zeven notities over rituele verandering, traditie en (vergelijkende) liturgiewetenschap. Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek 11:1 - 30.

Post, PGJ. 1995b. “An excellent game…”: On playing the mass, in Bread of heaven: customs and practices surrounding Holy Communion. Essays in the history of liturgy and culture (Liturgia Condenda 3), edited by C Caspers, G Lukken & G Rouwhorst. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House.

Post, PGJ. 1996. Liturgische bewegingen en feestcultuur. Een landelijk liturgiewetenschappelijk onderzoeksprogramma. Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek 12:21 - 55.

Post, PGJ. 2001a. Liturgical movements and feast culture. A Dutch research program, in Christian feast and festival. The dynamics of Western liturgy and culture, edited by PGJ Post, G. Rouwhorst, L. van Tongeren & A. Scheer. Leuven: Peeters.

Post, PGJ. 2001b. Introduction and application. Feast as a key concept in a liturgical studies research, in Christian feast and festival. The dynamics of

13

Western liturgy and culture, edited by PGJ Post, G. Rouwhorst, L. van Tongeren & A. Scheer. Leuven: Peeters.

Punch, M. 1994. Politics and ethics in qualitative research. in Handbook of qualitative research, edited by NK Denzin, & YS Lincoln. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Reason, P. 1994. Three approaches to participative inquiry. in Handbook of qualitative research, edited by NK Denzin, & YS Lincoln. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Sontag, S. 1989 (first published 1977). On photography. New York: Anchor Books Doubleday.

Stewart, A. 1998. The ethnographer’s method. Qualitative research methods Series 46. Thousand Oaks/ London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Stringer, MD. 1989. Liturgy and anthropology: the history of a relationship. Worship 63/6:503 - 521.

Stringer, MD. 1999. On the perception of worship. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press.

Swinkels, T & Post, P. 2003. Beginnings in ritual studies according to Ronald Grimes”. Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek 19:215 – 238.

Thumma, SL. 1998. Methods for congregational study, in Studying congregations: a new handbook, edited by NT Ammerman, JW Carroll, CS Dudley & W McKinney. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Turner, VW. 1969. The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Wepener, CJ. 2000. Liturgie en versoening. 'n Ondersoek na die inkulturasie van rituele van versoening in Suid-Afrika (‘n ondersoeksvoorstel). MTh-verhandeling, Universiteit van Stellenbosch.

Wepener, CJ. 2004. Van vas tot fees. 'n Ritueel-liturgiese ondersoek na versoening binne Suid-Afrikaanse kultuurkontekste. DTh-proefskrif Universiteit van Stellenbosch

14

Wepener, CJ. 2005. The object and aim of multi-disciplinary liturgical research. Scriptura (forthcoming).

15