Religious Education in Secularist Kindergartens? Pedagogical Leaders on Religion in Norwegian ECEC
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Over all I find this to be a clearly structured, theoretically sound and well-argued text. I only have a few comments.
Previous research could be opened up a bit more, particularly since the results of this study seem to be in line with some earlier findings that are now only very briefly noted.
In presenting the results, it would be nice if some more space could be given to what the respondents actually said. There are only a few very short quotes in the text and the description becomes somewhat heavy. I do not doubt that the participants opinions are well presented in the text, but hearing what was actually said would help clarify some of the arguments.
The language should be checked by a native speaker. There are no big issues in the text, but every now and then there are some small grammatical errors.
Author Response
Our comments to the 1st reviewer are marked with the color red in the text below:
Over all I find this to be a clearly structured, theoretically sound and well-argued text. I only have a few comments.
Previous research could be opened up a bit more, particularly since the results of this study seem to be in line with some earlier findings that are now only very briefly noted.
- Previous Norwegian research in the field was already shortly discussed in the text, but this paragraph is now expanded to include international research.
In presenting the results, it would be nice if some more space could be given to what the respondents actually said. There are only a few very short quotes in the text and the description becomes somewhat heavy. I do not doubt that the participants opinions are well presented in the text, but hearing what was actually said would help clarify some of the arguments.
- Some more quotations from our informants are now added to the text.
The language should be checked by a native speaker. There are no big issues in the text, but every now and then there are some small grammatical errors.
Reviewer 2 Report
Row 21: Strive to implement? Because, you haven't studied the implementation as such, have you?
Row 106-107: Maybe, leave out results already in the theory?
Row 128-129: Maybe, leave out results already in the theory?
Under the heading Previous research on religion in Norwegian ECE, also include international research on this topic.
Row 135-136: if this article (Hovdelien 2018) doesn’t include more than an overview of research done, it can be left out. However, include results from former research mentioned in Hovdeliens review article.
Row 169-171: insert also information about age, gender, time in preschool, when they did their university education, their religious affiliation etc among the interviewees. Later on (for example on row 432-447) you argue that differences in results could depend more on the interviewees, that on the demographic of the kindergartens.
Row 182-183: Nuance this (“the actual work”). You can’t claim that you have studied the implementation, only what the informants say about this (which of course can coincide, but you don’t know that from this study).
Row 195-198: Please explain why you ended up with this structure (“organizing”).
Row 344-345: for the reader it would be helpful, to have this kind of information earlier in the text, and for all of the kindergartens studied. By this having some more context to the analysis done. (And percent with letters (not with symbol (%)).
Row 383-386: wasn’t also eid an issue covered in at least some of the kindergartens? And visiting churches? Food restrictions?
Row 394-395: this is an interesting result, which, for example, contradict research about interfaith councils, in which the opposite process is seen.
Row 463-465: this conclusion is, I would argue, not sufficient empirically substantiated, in the article.
Author Response
Comments to the 2nd reviewer are marked with the color red in the text below
Row 21: Strive to implement? Because, you haven't studied the implementation as such, have you?
Row 106-107: Maybe, leave out results already in the theory?
- This is now deleted from the text.
Row 128-129: Maybe, leave out results already in the theory?
- This is now deleted from the text.
Under the heading Previous research on religion in Norwegian ECE, also include international research on this topic.
- This paragraph is now expanded to also include international research in the field.
Row 135-136: if this article (Hovdelien 2018) doesn’t include more than an overview of research done, it can be left out. However, include results from former research mentioned in Hovdeliens review article.
- ok.
Row 169-171: insert also information about age, gender, time in preschool, when they did their university education, their religious affiliation etc among the interviewees. Later on (for example on row 432-447) you argue that differences in results could depend more on the interviewees, that on the demographic of the kindergartens.
-This information of the informants is now included i the presentation. We didn't ask about when they did their education and their religious affiliation.
Row 182-183: Nuance this (“the actual work”). You can’t claim that you have studied the implementation, only what the informants say about this (which of course can coincide, but you don’t know that from this study).
- The text is now changed to meet this objection.
Row 195-198: Please explain why you ended up with this structure (“organizing”).
- ok.
Row 344-345: for the reader it would be helpful, to have this kind of information earlier in the text, and for all of the kindergartens studied. By this having some more context to the analysis done. (And percent with letters (not with symbol (%)).
Row 383-386: wasn’t also eid an issue covered in at least some of the kindergartens? And visiting churches? Food restrictions?
- This paragraph is added to the text: "According to the Framework Plan, the kindergartens are not obligated to mark other religions festivals than the Christian: Staff shall “introduce the children to and observe important dates, holidays and customs in the Christian tradition and those of other religions and world views represented in the kindergarten (the Framework Plan, 2017, 55). Notwithstanding this, several of our informants were more focused on presenting customs and knowledge about other religions, Islam in particular."
Row 394-395: this is an interesting result, which, for example, contradict research about interfaith councils, in which the opposite process is seen.
Row 463-465: this conclusion is, I would argue, not sufficient empirically substantiated, in the article.
- This sentence is now deleted.
Reviewer 3 Report
Minor points:
Wording - line 6 - 'object clause'? I'm not sure what this phrase means?
line 35 'are' (not 'is').
line 259 - evidence for the assertion about Christmas?
• • •
General Comments
Interesting research on an important area - the development of the teaching of religion in light of secularisation and pluralisation. Interesting argument that teaching staff give emphasis to diversity and minorities than traditional majority religion. Well written.
There is clear context and legislative framing in terms of Norway
It might be worth mentioning the UNRC also which advocates freedom of conscience for children? Secularisation theory is well understood (in terms of Taylor's analysis) but I wonder if more criticality could be applied here - for example through surfacing the debate between Steve Bruce and Grace Davie about the nature and extent of secularisation? The discussion could be underpinned by more literature.
The empirical study is clearly described and framed methodologically, acknowledging limitations relating to generalisability.
Isn't it inevitable that issues relating to diversity and minority tradition would surface? (after all these are the issue?). Christianity has had narrative privilege historically and a reset is arguably necessary.
Be careful about making conclusions based on omissions (e.g. about discussing Christmas with parents - line 322). Did you ask about this? To make a conclusion otherwise risks bias. Similarly, did you ask them if they 'play down' Christianity?
It's a big inferential leap to suggest acknowledging diversity leads to secularism (and how do you distinguish secularism from secularisation? They are not the same). More argument is needed here. Your respondents did not, as far as I can discern, say that religion was of "no general relevance". In fact you could argue that their sensitivity to diverse traditions is quite the opposite. I'm not sure the claims in the discussion can be retained as they currently stand.
I would question the conflation of secularisation and pluralism. I think a more circumspect argument is needed.
I think the article would also benefit from literature relating to approaches to taking RE from diverse contexts, acknowledging confessional and non-confessional discussions.
Author Response
Comments to the 3rd reviewer are marked with the color red in the text below
Minor points:
Wording - line 6 - 'object clause'? I'm not sure what this phrase means?
- object clause is the same as statement of purpose.
line 35 'are' (not 'is'). - ok.
-
line 259 - evidence for the assertion about Christmas? - A reference to the Framework Plan, 2017: 55 is added.
- • •
General Comments
Interesting research on an important area - the development of the teaching of religion in light of secularisation and pluralisation. Interesting argument that teaching staff give emphasis to diversity and minorities than traditional majority religion. Well written.
There is clear context and legislative framing in terms of Norway
It might be worth mentioning the UNRC also which advocates freedom of conscience for children? Secularisation theory is well understood (in terms of Taylor's analysis) but I wonder if more criticality could be applied here - for example through surfacing the debate between Steve Bruce and Grace Davie about the nature and extent of secularisation? The discussion could be underpinned by more literature.
- The current debate of the nature and extent of secularization is of great relevance.
- We have also added reference to more relevant literature in the text.
The empirical study is clearly described and framed methodologically, acknowledging limitations relating to generalisability.
Isn't it inevitable that issues relating to diversity and minority tradition would surface? (after all these are the issue?). Christianity has had narrative privilege historically and a reset is arguably necessary.
- That is arguable true, but it is also an implicit normative assertion. Our purpose have been to show how the Norwegian pedagogical leaders understand this process, and how they reflect upon issues related to religion in the pedagogical work in their kindergartens.
Be careful about making conclusions based on omissions (e.g. about discussing Christmas with parents - line 322). Did you ask about this? To make a conclusion otherwise risks bias. Similarly, did you ask them if they 'play down' Christianity?
-We see the point and have done changes in the text.
It's a big inferential leap to suggest acknowledging diversity leads to secularism (and how do you distinguish secularism from secularisation? They are not the same). More argument is needed here. Your respondents did not, as far as I can discern, say that religion was of "no general relevance". In fact you could argue that their sensitivity to diverse traditions is quite the opposite. I'm not sure the claims in the discussion can be retained as they currently stand. I would question the conflation of secularisation and pluralism. I think a more circumspect argument is needed.
- "Secularism" is the ideology and "secularization" is the process. We are leaning on Charles Taylor' distinction between three forms of "Secularity" in our discussion. "Secularity" for Taylor is the result from a process of secularization. Taylor argues that the third form of "Secularity", "Secularity 3" is the result of the pluralization of religion and values that comes as a result of diversity. The point is simply said, that religious people of different stands are influenced by their neighbors' "otherness", and start to question their own religious beliefs and practices.
I think the article would also benefit from literature relating to approaches to taking RE from diverse contexts, acknowledging confessional and non-confessional discussions.
