A phenomenology of the integration of faith and learning.
Sites, Elizabeth C. ; Garzon, Fernando L. ; Milacci, Frederick A. 等
This phenomenological investigation examined how eight
student-nominated faculty who teach at an evangelical Christian liberal
arts university describe their understanding and practice of the
Integration of Faith and Learning(IFL). Collected data via informal
conversational, taped interviews led to the emergence if two primary
themes: the Inseparability of Faith from Practice and the Outworking of
Faith in Practice. The findings of the study highlight the need to
create a more conductive context in which students can learn IFL and
call for a re-examination of the already murky discourse surrounding
definitional aspects of IFL. The study proposes to move the discourse
forward by offering a new, yet to be discussed construct that emanated
from the participants of this study, ontological foundation. A
conceptual model describing its relationship with IFL is proposed.
**********
Numerous conceptual models for the integration of faith and
learning (IFL) are present in the general literature (Farnsworth, 1982;
Faw, 1998; Holmes, 1987) and in the counseling/clinical psychology
literature (Carter & Narramore, 1979; Eck, 1996; Entwistle, 2004).
What is less prevalent is a consensus definition for IFL (Faw, 1998; See
Badley, 1994, for a review) and specific studies on how faculty members
at religious universities actually do IFL.
The Current study seeks to fill that gap by phenomenologically
investigating how eight Christian faculty members at a Christian liberal
arts university actually live out IFL. These faculty members are unique
in that were not the product of a board sample, or nominated by
administrators or colleagues as exemplary integrators. Rather, these
integrators were nominated by students as the professors from whom the
students had learned the most about IFL.
Brodening Entwistle's (2004) IFL definition from a focus on
psychology to general academic disciplines, we conceptualize IFL as a
multidimensional scholarly yet holistic task. All italicized words were
in Enwistle's original text. The integration of faith and
learning(or integration) is a "multifaceted attempt to discern the
underlying truths" (p.242) about one's liberal arts discipline
and "Christianity (in theology, faith, and practice)" (p.242).
"It will involve explicating the foundational presuppositions and
histories of out disciplines. It will be a disciplinary and scholarly
exercise when one attempts to integrate the findings of the.. [liberal
arts discipline] and theology" (p.243). It will be "an applied
integration" as men and women attempt to live out their findings
(p.243)."Finally, it will be public and personal; it will be a
shared responsibility and a personal quest for wholeness by individuals
within their communities and in relation to God" (p.243).
We begin this study by briefly recognizing IFL models that exhibit
a continuum of differing levels of interaction between the discipline
and Christianity. Particular attention will be given to writers who
explore IFL more holistically, specifically in regards to interpersonal
and interpersonal dimensions. Next, research that focuses on how
Christian faculty do IFL will be examined. Particular attention is given
to the only currently researched model of how students learn IFL
(proposed by Sorenson, 1997). Subsequently, the faculty participants in
this study are introduced, and their phenomenological descriptions of
IFL and its practice are presented. The findings are than explored in
regards to their implications of IFL and its practice are presented. The
findings are then explored in regards to their implications for defining
integration and its task.
The IFL Continuum
Many theorists have created models of IFL involving various
potential levels of interaction between the academic disciplines and
Christianity. These often start with a level indicating no interaction
(or perhaps even hostility at the idea) and proceed to one indicating a
high level of academic/theological engagement to discover unified truth
(See Carter & Narramore, 1979); ECK, 1996; Entwistle, 2004;
Farnsworth, 1982; Faw, 1998; Holmes, 1987). While most of these model
developers acknowledge the importance of interpersonal integration on
the part of the professor, fewer developers have delved more deeply into
these aspects of the holistic context in which IFL occurs.
Farnsworth (1982) notes these aspects in his "embodied
integration" (p.310) concept. As one discovers unifying truths
underlying psychology and theology, one must apply these truths in life
through "right thinking and right living, or orthodoxy and
orthopraxy" (p.310). "In short, it is living-thought and
action, hearing and doing--with God" (pp.317-318, emphasis in the
original). Thus, Farnsworth emphasizes that truths discovered from
scholarly integrative activities must be applied personally. Little
additional exploration of interpersonal and interpersonal aspects takes
place.
In contrast, Gill (1979) applied incarnational theology to IFL
specifically to emphasize "the human context" (p.1010) of
learning. Professors need to strive to know students more personally and
learn what is important to them. An emphasis must be placed on the
process of learning and not just the content.
Bouma-Prediger (1990) perhaps goes the farthest of IFL model
developers in addressing interpersonal and interpersonal aspects. He
proposes a typology of four kinds of integration between two disciplines
(e.g., psychology and theology). Intradisciplinary IFL "is the
attempt to unite or bring into harmony theoretical perspective and
professional practice" (p.25). Experiential integration involves
the quest for "personal wholeness and spiritual well-being ... the
resolution of intrapersonal conflict ..." (p.28). of particular
interest is faith-praxis integration.
It is the attempt to live out one's faith commitment as
authentically as possible in every day life, including one's
vocation or professional life but usually going beyond that to include,
for example, family relations, business decisions, educational
endeavors, institutional religious involvement, ethical decision making,
and so forth. The aim with this type of integration is internal harmony
or consistency between faith commitment and way of life. In other words,
the task is to live in accordance with one's faith commitment and
world view. (p.27)
In summary, numerous scholars have utilized a continuum of levels
in describing their IFL models. Most models focus primarily on the
scholarly aspects of interdisciplinary engagement between theology and
the academic disciplines. Fewer have addressed more holistic elements
such as interpersonal and interpersonal involved in IFL.
Research on how Christian Faculty do IFL
While many IFL models exist, few studies have been done on what
Christian faculty are actually doing regarding IFL Hardin, Sweeney, and
Whitworth (1999) quantitatively surveyed faculty members in the teacher
education departments of colleges associated with the Church of Christ
to ascertain how they practiced IFL. Seventy surveys were returned, with
81% disagreeing with the need to separate faith into only certain areas
of the teacher education curriculum. Such responses were
"consistent with respondent's comments that it is difficult if
not impossible to compartmentalize one's religious faith and that
it must permeate through virtually every aspect of a person's life,
including his/her professional life as a teacher educator" (p. 6).
Ream, Beaty, and Lion. (2004) sought to discover how faculty
members at four research-focused religious schools (Baylor, Boston
College, Brigham Young, and Notre Dame) understand IFL through a
qualitative examination of faculty responses to open-ended questions in
a survey (N = 1728, 53% response rate). They found a variety of views
that appeared consistent with the continuum of IFL possibilities
proposed by several model developers noted above, from one subset
believing faith and learning should be separate and independent to those
espousing a more holistic incorporation of faith in a variety of campus
elements.
Morton (2004) interviewed 30 faculty participants from three
Southern Baptist colleges who were selected by their academic deans as
professors "who purported to deliberately integrate faith and
learning" (p.56). The areas of fine arts, humanities, math and
sciences, social sciences, and professional studies were represented. In
addition to the interviews, Morton examined course syllabi and made
class observations. Based on his findings, Morton developed a
seven-level IFL model that had clear similarities to the previous models
noted in this literature review.
Milacci's (2003, 2006) phenomenology of Christian spirituality
was conducted with a purposive sample of eight adult educators who
taught in non-religious settings. These professors were identified and
confirmed by reputation and works to ascribe to some form of Christian
faith. A "strong, recurring theme, implicitly and explicitly, in
all participants' descriptions of how their faith informs or frames
their practice was community building" (p. 124), "engaging
others on their growth" (p.130). Thus, Milacci's (2003) eight
participants described the desire to holistically integrate their faith
in education thought the non-religious contexts presented clear
constraints to this ability.
In summary, current research on how Christian faculty do IFL has
utilized quantitative survey strategies, content analysis of open-ended
survey questions, and phenomenological inquiry. Each sample of
professors in these studies was either chosen by administrators, part of
a large invited sample, or, on the phenomenological study, a purposive
sample. Taken together, the studies clearly indicated that faculty
integrate along a continuum of IFL levels consistent with various
literature descriptions described above.
Sorenson's Research on how Students Learn Integration
Given that faculty integrate differently, the question of how these
approaches impact the students" learning of IFL becomes paramount.
Sorenson's (1997) theoretical and empirical work stands out as
highly useful in describing key aspects of the student's IFL
learning process. Specific information on his studies may be found in
Ripley, Garzon, Hall, and mangis (2009) and Sorenson, Derflinger,
Bufford, & McMinn (2004) His general findings will be described
below.
Sorenson based his ideas on attachment theory (e.g., Stolorow &
Atwood, 1992). Consistent with these theories, his studies indicated
that the quality of relationship between potential mentors and the
graduate psychology student had greater influence on the student's
IFL perspective than the integration content of the psychology program.
"Evidence of a professor's ongoing process in a personal
relationship with Gold is the single most important dimension that
accounts for what students found helpful for their own integration of
clinical psychology and faith" (Sorenson, 1997, p. 541). In other
words, as the professors shared from their own spiritual lives with
students, their IFL teachings become more impactful. Emotional
transparency and a sense of humor were also helpful qualities.
One style does not fit all, however. Because students are different
in personality, the relational style most influential in learning
integration varied. A caring "pastoral" personal style was
helpful for some students while a more sojourning or
"struggling" faith style helpful others. Individual, personal
interactions were more meaningful for some students while group-focused
interactions were more important for others. As a whole, Sorenson's
(1997) research calls into question the heavy emphasis on scholarly
aspects of IFL without consideration of the student-professor relational
matrix that either catalyzes such activity or extinguishes it.
Rationale for the Study
Taken together, the on-going definitional issues surrounding IFL
and the paucity of studies on how faculty actually do IFL support the
need for further research on faculty members' understanding and
practice of IFL. Likewise, the importance of how students appear to
learn integration indicates a need to focus on faculty members that
students identify as helpful in their integration-learning process.
The current study student-nominated faculty members'
understanding and practice of the integration of faith and learning
(IFL) who teach in a large Evangelical United States. Given this focus,
along with the fact that qualitative research in general and
phenomenology in particular are concerned with describing and
interpreting human phenomena from the perspective of those who have
experienced them (Heidegger, 1972; Moustakas, 1994; van Manen, 1990),
phenomenological inquiry was deemed most appropriate. Two questions
framed the study: 1). How do student-nominated understand IFL and 2).
How do they describe the relationship between their faith and their
practices as educators?
METHOD
Consistent with most phenomenological research, data was collected
via conversational, semistructured interviews as the primary means of
exploring in depth the phenomenon of interest (Creswell. 2007: van
Manen, 1990). participants answered open-ended questions and thus were
able to tell their stories with all the richness inherent therein (Lee
& Stronks, 1994). All interviews lasted from 60 minutes to 2 and 1/2
hours and began by asking participants several "grand tour"
questions (Leech, 2002, p. 667) such as "tell me about your
faith" in an attempt to get them to share their own stories and
narratives in a very open-ended fashion (Milacci, 2003). Seven of the
eight interviews were audio taped and subsequently transcribed. One
participant requested that she not be recorded; however, permission was
granted to type this participant's responses as the interview
progressed. Follow up interviews were also conducted with all
participants.
Subsequent to the data collection process, the data was approached
in terms of "meaning units, structures of meaning or themes"
(van Manen, 1990, p. 78). This process of recovering themes embodied in
the work is identified as "theme analysis" (van Manen, 1990,
p. 78), a procedure in which the researcher attempts to gain control and
order of the data by "seeing" meaning in the data (van Manen,
1990, p. 79). Initially, the data analysis began by listening and
re-listening to the interview tapes while at the same time reading and
re-reading the transcribed interview data, field notes, and other
pertinent participant documents in search of meaning units or structures
of the phenomenon of interest, the Integration of Faith and Learning.
Then, words, phrases, sentences, etcetera, that were deemed potentially
significant to this study were highlighted and/or noted directly on the
written transcripts. In time, after a myriad of readings and re-readings
of the transcripts, data that directly addressed the research questions
were coded into meaning units that eventually became the themes and
sub-themes of this study. Finally, it should be noted that as a means of
ensuring credibility and trustworthiness, both member checking with
participants and periodic peer review of the data (Creswell, 2007) were
employed.
Participant selection for this study was accomplished through a
form of criterion sampling (Creswell, 2007). More specifically,
selection for participation was based on student perception of a faculty
member's effectiveness in the practice of integration. Towards that
end, students in a random sample of 10% of the graduate classes taking
place at the time of the study were given a 52-item survey to assess
their perception of the integration of faith and learning. One question
in the survey asked students to identify one individual whom they
considered "to be the faculty member that 1 have learned Christian
integration from the most". The faculty members who received the
highest number of highest number of student nominations were invited to
participate in the study.
Ultimately, eight such were identified and subsequently interviewed
(four female, four male): Kimberly, Theresa, Cathy, Natalie, peter,
Harold, William, and George (all pseudonyms). Since data saturation
occurred with these participants, it was determined that no further
selection was needed. Seven of the 8 participants were Caucasian, one
had a bi-racial background. At the time of their interview, all had
taught full time in a higher education context anywhere from 1 to 29
years in a variety of disciplines. Cathy, for example, taught in the
Communications Studies Department. Natalie in the English Department,
and both Kimberly and Theresa were members of the Nursing Department.
One male, Peter, worked in the School of education; the other 3 males,
Harold, William and George, were graduate counseling faculty.
The participants shared some noteworthy commonalities not specific
to the criteria used for selection. Specifically, all eight related a
deep and abiding faith in God. Interestingly, seven of the eight
participants told of low their understanding of faith grew out of crises
in their lives.
Finally, it should be noted that to be a truly phenomenological
inquiry, the written text should include a generous sampling of the
participants' voices (moustakas, 1994; van Manen, 1990) because it
is in the participants' voices the richness and depth of
phenomenological meaning of IFL would be found (van Manen, 1990). Thus,
the voices of the participants are presented in abundance--deliberately
so--in the study.
FINDINGS: PICTURES OF THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND LEARNING (IFL)
Initially, the research questions guiding the study seemed to lend
themselves to two discreet categories of analysis: 1) how participants
described the construct of integration and, 2) how participants applied
their understanding of these descriptions to their work. But as data
analysis continued, it become apparent that the results could not be so
easily compartmentalized. Rather, it seemed that multiple themes could
slip easily and fluidly between the categories (participants'
understanding of integration and the practial application of those
understandings). Put another way, there appeared to be no distinction
between the understanding and application of integration in the minds of
these student-nominated integrators. Ultimately, the following two main
themes emerged: The Inseparability of Faith from Practice and The
Outworking of Faith in Practice.
The Inseparability of Faith from Practice
From the beginning of the first interview, all eight participants
described their faith in ontological terms, such as the essence of their
being, inseparable in every way from every aspect of their life and
work, the center of everything they do, as Kimberly's words
exemplify:
[Faith is] paramount. It's just, it is your being. ... People
need to be able to see Christ emulating through you in your care, in
your touch, how you speak with them, how you have eye contact with them.
What is your presence? They need to see that emulating from you, from
your walk with Christ.
To underscore her point, Kimberly used the metaphor of a woven
fabric as a means of depicting her understanding of how integral faith
was to be life being and practice:
If you think of a fabric, [faith] is woven into the fabric of the
education. And it's like, if you had a fabric, like your jacket.
[The researcher was wearing a plaid jacket during Kimberly's
interview.] If you took out the white threads, and let's say that
was the faith part in your education, your fabric would be flawed. It
would have holes in it. But with the right fabric, with the right
threads, it's made whole.
Peter's perspective was similar to that of Kimberly, stating
that for him, it simply was not possible to "separate faith ...
from any part of your life." He continued that, in his discipline
(education), "[faith is] the king of thing that you can't
separate ... we're integrating both educational principles as well
as faith." He went on to add that,
Many of our experiences in the area of education come as a result
of who we are in Christ, not just that we've read a book. ... I
think many times faith is just not using a word, a character word, or
Bible verse, or even mentioning the name of God or Christ, but what
makes me the best person that I could possibly be.
Similarly, George declared that he does not separate faith from his
actions or from the rest of his being. "My faith fills everything I
do. It is the essence of who I am. So I don't separate out my
'secular life' from my 'faith life'."
For Harold, "faith plays a key role ... faith is at the center
of who we should be, here at this place, and who we are, I think, as a
department." William concurred, adding that faith for him is
inseparable from every other aspect of his being.
These participant descriptions of faith as the center of being
reflect a profoundly holistic understanding of being reflect a
profoundly holistic understanding of integration. As such, these
student-nominated faculty members expressed their desire to live out--or
integrate--their faith in every area of their lives, including and
especially in their educational practice; concomitantly, for them, faith
is inseparable from educational practice.
This integrative perspective is implicitly reflected, for example,
in Cathy's statement that, "Maybe what I'm doing is
I'm living it. Living my faith and talking about my life and
that's how it [integration] is reflected." In a similar
fashion, Natalie referred to integration as "bringing who God is
making me to be into the classroom to discuss that alongside
literature." She continued,
I have a hard time, I think, defining [integration]. But the first
picture that comes to my mind--how do you live on Sunday versus how do
you live the rest of the week? I can't separate-can't walk
into the classroom and do something with my mind that is not already
going on. I can't do integration in the classroom if I haven't
already been doing it.
For Harold and William, this ontological notion of being and
practice was more explicit; in fact, it was what they both hoped to
impart to their students. According to Harold, his desire is that
"they [my students] will be a person of faith. That faith permeates
who they are in everything they do." William shared a similar
vision:
Well, if a student really gets what I teach, the first thing that
would happen would he that they would define themselves in a markedly
different way. Their definition would start from the inside and work its
way out, not start from the outside and work its way in. So, they would
understand that first and fore mostly they're image bearers.
They're created in the image of God. And they are recreated,
regenerated through the power of the Holy Spirit to refresh and renew
the image of God at the core and to have that permeate their thought
life, their feelings, their choices, their bodies, their relationships.
So that would be, they would be inside-out thinkers.
George also--indirectly--referenced this type of integrative
approach when he expressed frustration that some of his colleagues hold
to a faith but do not practice it in certain domains of their lives.
More specifically, for George, failure in integration is reflected when
other faculty members compartmentalize their faith from their attitudes
and actions in the classroom, for example, when they make bitter
comments about work in their lectures to students. As George declared,
"that to me is absolute poison for integration."
It's a very sad thing when you see an embittered professor
bleed that into his or her classroom. It's a very sad thing, and
that modeled a very non-Christ-like character to me, to the students. It
was immature, and it harmed and, to me, invalidated much of what the
professors would talk about as far as being Christ-like in their
profession.
William also expressed concern about failing to integrate faith
into every area of life-including educational practice--referring to it
as "a sink hole," as a place "where you've got this
veneer, but underneath there's this vacuous hole." Later, when
asked about what he would do at his institution to address this
"sink hole" and enhance integration (if he had carte blanch),
William replied,
I would require every faculty member in the university to
participate in clearly defined and strategized lessons, lectures,
training on what it means to be a healthy integrated person. That's
what I'd do. I would have a team of people who did nothing at the
university but meet with faculty and participate in faculty development
that was very strategic and very, very focused on helping faculty to
mature in their Christian faith. If I had the magic wand, and I could do
anything, that's what I [would do], because everything starts with
the person.
Based on this data, it would appear that these student-nominated
participants did not view integration on a continuum of application as
much of the literature did. Rather, they saw their faith as being so
much a part of them that it is the essence of their being and
inseparable from every part of their lives.
The Outworking of Faith in Practice
Not only did participants describe the inseparability of their
faith from their educational practice, they also shared their
understanding of how their faith manifested itself in their practice. In
particular, participants' descriptions of how faith impacts
practice are framed by the following two themes: The Infusion of Faith
in Pedagogy and The Demonstration of Faith in Relationships.
The Infusion of Faith in Pedagogy
All participants spoke--directly or indirectly-of infusing faith
into their educational practice, their pedagogy. For some, this infusion
was manifested in terms of incorporating Scripture into their
curriculum. Theresa, for example, stated:
I developed an online course for our graduate students in health
assessment. And so, as I was teaching each body part, I would integrate
how God had created that particular thing, everything from, you know,
the eyes to the ears, everything. So, and then the lesson went on to
just sort of capitalize [on] that. So that's sort of a tangible way
of saying integration of faith and curriculum.
Similarly, Kimberly mentioned how when she teaches about the human
body to her pathophysiology students, God's "perfect
design" becomes very evident:
Down at the cellular level, the ion level, how that perfect design
comes into play. And we talk about that quite a bit. And looking at the
regulatory, the mechanisms of the body, and the counter-regulatory
mechanisms, and how everything is meshed together.
Natalie shared that one of the ways she explicitly infuses faith
into her discipline of English is by using ancient Biblical literature,
such as the book of Genesis or the Psalms. Other times, she uses a more
implicit approach by having students focus on literature that alludes to
Scripture:
It fascinates me. I get the opportunity to teach from a
shepherd's perspective. The kids can be as interested in the images
as I am. The image of the lost sheep who is set upon the right path is
fascinating. In A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, he talks about when a
sheep falls over, it cannot set itself aright. It can't stand on
its own and is apparently too stupid to do it--body structure. The
shepherd setting sheep on the right path, we can talk about pictures
like that.
Natalie reflected that whether she is using texts "that are
based on scripture," or ones that are secular in nature, "I am
in a field [e.g. literature] that gives me a wealth of opportunity to
integrate."
William uses metaphors from Scripture because he believes students
remember metaphors more than other constructs that are taught: "I
realize that in those metaphors is integration. In those metaphors is
power. And in those metaphors [is] healing for them and energy to move
forward and have better relationships, with themselves and with God and
with others." Harold uses historical characters from Scripture as a
means of illustrating some of the subject matter his students need for
licensure in his field of counseling. "We can take families from
the Scripture and perform a genogram on them and examine family systems
and how they function."
In addition to this practice of incorporating Scripture into the
curriculum by some of the participants, for others, the infusion of
faith into their pedagogy is manifested in terms of teaching from a
Christian worldview. Cathy, for example, mentioned how she uses a
"Christian worldview" when teaching Communication Studies:
When something comes up that is an ethical or moral question. What
I am doing now, and this is a process too, particularly in the graduate
[level courses] ..., is looking more at the material we use in class.
And since I'm learning more about this and reading more about it,
looking at the worldview of the author and ... trying to reach from a
Christian worldview.
Later, Cathy went on to explain that, as a means of showing to her
students the practical implications of this Christian worldview on the
field of Communications Studies, she often asks her class if, as
Christians, they should even be teaching advertising. "Should we
[Christians] be in a business where we are marketing things for
people's wants and not their needs? I'm still struggling with
that."
Natalie indirectly referred to her practice of taking the Christian
worldview and integrating it into her discipline (English) by reflecting
on human life in literature:
It's almost ridiculous to say I teach ... stories; I'm
teaching reflections of people--contemplating what it means to live
life--contemplating human conflict. Literature is really about exploring
the human condition-what it means to be human. Who do we listen to as
authority--what drives us--what we need and what we want.
In a similar manner, Peter, Harold, and William all referenced
their practice of incorporating the "Christian worldview"
directly in their teaching.
George did not explicitly reference the Christian worldview when
reflecting on his teaching praxis. Instead, he spoke of doing what he
termed as "Christian scholarship," an academic and spiritual
endeavor he described as "a holy enterprise."
What I think is more challenging [than critical thinking] is to
learn Biblical creative thinking. What might God be saying in this
argument? What would make this argument better? What would I add to make
this make sense? How would I refine this to make it better? So, I think
there's a creative thinking process that's a part of
integration and scholarship that sometimes we miss if we just do
critical thinking. Because when we can take things apart, that
doesn't mean that we can see the whole or put it together in a
better package. And I think that that's a part of Christian
scholarship as well.
The Demonstration of Faith in Relationships
In addition to directly or indirectly infusing faith into their
pedagogy, a second way in which participants described the outworking of
faith in practice was in terms of how that faith is demonstrated in
their interpersonal relationships. More specifically, all eight
participants emphasized the importance of intentionally cultivating
loving relationships with others--both in and outside of the classroom.
For these educators, "others" included (but was not limited
to) students, colleagues, staff, and those outside of the university.
Natalie, for example, described how true integration occurs when
she is able to build a "sincere relationship between me and the
students." This is important to Natalie "[because students]
want to know that I care about them, before they whole heartedly accept
what I have to say." Kimberly agreed, adding that
"I[ntegration] starts with us caring for them. And so, showing the
love of Christ to them one on one. And I think that's the other
things is we have to respect them, just respect them for who they
are."
A story recounted by George illustrates how seriously he--and for
that matter, all of the participants--took this notion of showing
students they are valued, cared for, and respected:
[There was] an instance where a professor left a university in the
middle of a term ... for a variety of reasons. We prayed; we really
sought God in terms of how to deal with the situation. And there was a
way in which that crisis, I think, brought us together as a community.
So, the situation was dealt with, and the person was honored, and the
students were honored in terms of their hurt and frustration and their
needs, and we as a faculty worked together to make sure that the
students' needs were met. I think, at that point, how we handled
that could have either validated or invalidated everything we were
teaching in the classroom.
For Harold, cultivating loving relationships with students was
something he believed was tied directly to his vocation, his calling. A
practical outworking of that calling was found in his intentional
attempts to mentor his students. For Harold, this is "the key, the
heart of it ... encouraging them, and loving them, and giving them
direction in Christ."
Theresa emphasized that cultivating loving relationships with
students is something that must be done on a daily basis, as a regular
part of her life as a faculty member:
I think it's just how we live. I mean, what we do on a day to
day basis really shows our integration of faith more than standing in a
classroom and lecturing about it. It's sort of like talkin'
the talk and walkin' the walk.
Theresa went on to describe her belief that faith is inseparable
from the way she treats others, not just in the classroom on campus, but
also in the clinical "classroom" at the hospital; simply
stated, for Theresa, integration is faith in practice:
Integration is when we actually practice, you know, what we teach,
we practice at the bedside. So if we're teaching the love of Christ
in the classroom and how we give compassionate care, we should be doing
that at the bedside, and that's true integration.
Kimberly, like Theresa, spoke of the importance of showing the love
of Christ to others outside of the classroom, including people who are
difficult to love.
We have to show Christ's love to [difficult patients] as
unlovely as they may be, even when they may be cursing us, and ungodly,
and unloving, and dying. And if we're able to integrate [at] that
time, we can sometimes help them to often see things a little
differently, and come to know the Lord, or maybe rededicate their lives
to the Lord. You have to be able to live what you're doing and live
that love of Christ in others.
Cathy emphasized the importance of cultivating loving relationships
with her colleagues, and in fact exclaimed, "I love my colleagues.
What good camaraderie you can have with faculty!" Peter agreed,
stating, "I love [my department]. I think a lot has to do with my
attitude as well as the attitude of others."
Kimberly described the relationship with her colleagues in the
Nursing Department as one in which "we care about one another, not
only as we come together as a body of believers, but also a body of
professionals." She went on to add,
We want to encourage each other professionally through scholarship
endeavors and research, publication, other things of that nature,
looking at each other's clinical practice, but more so we also work
on encouraging each other spiritually. We pray for one another. We
support one another if someone is ill or needs help. We are there with
meals, with childcare, housecleaning, whatever needs [to be] done. Just
like a family unit that was functional as a healthy family, we support
one another.
William mentioned how he regularly reaches out to three or four
colleagues, " a group of people with whom I have a very intimate
and close connection." He expressed how his desire in his
relationships with his colleagues was "to honor the people that
[I'm] leading. And by that I mean I try to be sensitive to them. I
try to create opportunities for them. I try to be kind to them. I try to
be gracious to them."
Finally, George spoke of the value of cultivating relationships
with everyone who is part of the university community, even those who
might be considered less significant or important.
I believe that what appears to be the smallest job here is actually
the largest. So, many times the job like, the janitors that come around
here and take the trash, the people that are fixing up the buildings,
TAs, GAs, ... They're people that are "assistants" that
you take for granted. But actually, they're what really give the
flavor and the Christian impact in many ways that we don't realize
here ... And so to me, the things that appear the smallest--really are
quite large in terms of conveying an environment for Christian learning.
I mean, they're just essential, and oftentimes, we miss them. But,
they're really important.
George believes that the way he treats others "matters"
because it will impact the whole environment. William agrees, stating
that What we do day after day after day after day to minister to the
weakest person in this place [matters]. You know, because if I touch the
life of a person here, every life is like a pebble in a pond. It ripples
out.
Taken together, the data from this study indicate that these
student-nominated faculty see their faith as an inseparable aspect of
their being that flows into all areas of their life, including the
academic. Concomitantly, faith infuses their pedagogy and strengthens
the care they express in relationships.
DISCUSSION
This study's findings call for a re-examination of the already
murky area of defining IFL and its tasks (Faw, 1998). Specifically, two
points will be considered. First, IFL requires additional contextual
elements in order to occur optimally for students. Second, the best
integrators in students' eyes convey an aspect as yet not discussed
in the literature, ontological foundation.
Contextual Elements for Optimal IFL in Students
Sorenson's research, the first two studies in this special
edition (Ripley et al., 2009; Hall et al., 2009), and this study combine
to underline the students' emphasis on holistic elements crucial to
the IFL task. Entwistle (2004) acknowledges the importance of some of
these elements in his description of the public and personal aspects of
IFL: "Integration is done by people who live and work in community.
... We must cultivate a culture [for IFL] in which dialogue, critique,
and support are found" (Entwistle, 2004, p.245).
Taken together, these studies highlight just how in-depth those
supportive elements need to be to create a more conducive context for
students to learn IFL. To students, the professor's challenge is
much more than scholarly. Integration must occur in the context of
caring relationships which mentors (professors, administrators, etc.)
who have spiritual depth and who bring this depth out experientially and
conceptually (cf. Hall & Porter, 2004) both inside and outside the
classroom. The current study also highlights an important component of
IFL for further consideration.
Ontological Foundation
Entwistle's (2004) definition of multidimensional scholarly
integration and Bouma-Prediger's (1990) emphasis on faith praxis
integration capture only some aspects of these participants'
descriptions. In particular, the words used to define faith
praxis--"attempt," "aim ... is ... internal harmony or
consistency," "task is to live in accordance ..."
(Bouma-Prediger, 1990, p. 27)--imply international effort on behalf of
the integrators. These worthwhile endeavors contrast with the IFL
descriptions from the participants of this study. For example, "It
is your being ... a fabric"(Kimberly), "you can't
separate ..." (Peter), "it is the essence of who I am"
(George), "faith is at the center ..." (Harold)," ...
bringing who God is making me to be into the classroom" (Natalie),
etc. Rather than being intentionally integrated, these participants
described IFL as involving a foundational aspect of themselves, similar
to what Milacci (2005) expressed when he argued,
How can I integrate that which already lies at the very core of my
being? To me, this seems no more plausible than asking someone to
integrate their gender or culture into every part of their life: Whether
or not these kinds of core elements are consciously acknowledged, they
are always present. A more appropriate question might be, 'How do I
determine when to be explicit and when to be implicit about my
spirituality?' (p. 157)
Therefore, we propose the term, ontological foundation, to describe
this aspect of IFL in student-nominated professors. For us, ontological
foundation is natural out flowing of one's faith and being into the
pedagological, relational, and community contexts of academic life (cf.,
Jn 7:38). This out flowing of faith and being has a spontaneous, fluid
quality which is distinct from the intentional quality of faith praxis,
while still going hand-in-hand with faith praxis and multidimensional
scholarly IFL. Professors differ regarding this quality, and students
appear to readily identify professors possessing this quality as being
the most helpful in their learning of integration.
Conceptually, a reciprocal relationship between these three aspects
of IFL can be observed. It appears one's ontological foundation
impacts both faith praxis and scholarly IFL can also influence
one's ontological foundation but much more slowly since ontological
elements by nature reside at the very core of one's being. Faith
praxis and scholarly IFL can more readily influence each other because
of their intentionality. Figure 1 captures these relationships in
student-nominated professors.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The emergence of ontological foundation as an IFL construct has
implications for professors wanting to integrate effectively with
students. Integration does not start with scholarly acumen; rather, it
starts with each faculty member's personal spiritual depth as
expressed in their ontological foundation. Some might argue that this is
"obvious" and in fact not IFL but, when combined with faith
praxis, is simply "Christian living"; however, we contend that
the fact that each of these eight student-nominated faculty displayed
this ontological component speaks to its foundational importance for
integration. The present study therefore amplifies how profound
Sorenson's (1997, p. 541) "on-going process in relationship
with God" actually is. These faculty participants were being
themselves in an ontological sense rather than integrating.
In some ways, we implicitly have questioned the adequacy of the
overarching construct, the integration of faith and learning, with the
findings of this study. Specifically, if integration involves the
natural out flowing of a person's spiritual essence, what exactly
is being integrated? At the same time, occasions do arise when one must
intentionally think about who they are as followers of Christ and what
that will mean in a given context. This lends support to the
relationship between ontological foundation and faith praxis in regards
to IFL.
Further research is needed to substantiate ontological foundation
as a construct and to clarify the proposed relationship between
ontological foundation, faith praxis, and multidimensional scholarly
integration. The results of this study are limited in that they have
focused on 8 student-nominated faculty from one evangelical Christian
university. Additional research on student-nominated faculty from a
variety of Christian universities is warranted.
REFERENCES
Badley, K. (1994). The faith/learning integration movement in
Christian higher education: Slogan or substance? Journal of Research on
Christian Education, 3, 13-33.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and
healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.
Bouma-Prediger, S. (1990). The task of integration: A modest
proposal. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18, 21-31.
Carter, J.D., & Narramore, S. B. (1979). The integration of
psychology and theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eck, B. E. (1996). Integrating the integrators: An organizing
framework for a multifaceted process of integration. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity, 15, 101-115.
Entwistle, D. N. (2004). Integrative approaches to psychology and
Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical
foundations, and models of integration. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Farnsworth, K. E. (1982). The conduct of integration. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 10, 308-319.
Faw, H. W. (1998) Wilderness wanderings and promised integration:
The quest for clarity. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 26, 147-158.
Gill, J. H. (1979). Faith in learning: Integrative education and
incarnational theology. The Christian Century, 96, 1009-1013.
Hall, E., Ripley, J., Garzon, F., & Mangis, M. (2009). The
other side of the podium: Student perspectives on learning integration,
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 37, 15-27.
Hall, T. W., & Porter, S. L. (2004). Referential integration:
An emotional information processing perspective on the process of
integration. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 167-180.
Hardin, J., Sweeney, J., & Whitworth, J. (1999). Integrating
faith and learning in teacher education. Paper presented at the Extended
Annual Meeting of the Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges
for Teacher Education.
Heidegger, M. (1972). On time and being. (J. Stambaugh, Trans.).
New York: Harper & Row.
Holmes, A. F. (1987). The idea of a Christian college (Rev. ed.).
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Lee, D. J., & Stronks, G.G. Editors (1994). Assessment in
Christian higher education: Rhetoric and reality. New York: University
Press of America.
Leech, B. L. (2002, December). Asking questions: Techniques for
semistructured interviews. PS Online.
Milacci, F. A. (2003). A step towards faith: The limitations of
spirituality in adult education practice. (Doctoral dissertation, The
Pennsylvania State University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 64, 09A, 1-173.
Milacci, F. A. (2005). Spirituality of adult education and
training. Adult Education Quarterly, 55, 156-158.
Milacci, F. A. (2006). Moving towards faith: An inquiry into
spirituality in adult education. Christian Higher Education, 5, 211-233.
Morton, C. H. (2004). A description of deliberate attempts of the
integration of faith and learning by faculty members at colleges
affiliated with the Southern Baptist denomination. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of South Carolina, 2004). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 65,12A,1-270.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ream, T. C., Beaty, M., & Lion, L. (2004). Faith and learning:
Toward a typology of faculty views at religious research universities.
Christian Higher Education, 3(4), 349-372.
Ripley, J., Garzon, F., Hall, E., & Mangis, M. (2009).
Pilgrims' progress: Faculty and University factors in graduate
student integration of faith and learning. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 37, 5-14.
Sorenson, R. L. (1997). Doctoral students' integration of
psychology and Christianity: Perspectives via Attachment Theory and
Multidimensional Scaling. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
36,530-548.
Sorenson, R. L., Derflinger, K. R., Bufford, R. K., & McMinn,
M. R. (2004). National collaborative research on how students learn
integration: Final report. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23,
355-365.
Stolorow, R., & Atwood, G. (1992). Contexts of being: The
intersubjective foundations of psychological life. Hillsdale, NJ: The
Analytic Press.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science
for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
ELIZABETH C. SITES, FERNANDO L. GARZON, FREDERICK A. MILACCI AND
BARBARA BOOTHE
Liberty University
AUTHORS
SITES, ELIZABETH, C. Address: Liberty University, 1971 University
Blvd., Lynchburg, VA 24502. Title: Assistant Professor, Department of
Psychology, Liberty University. Degree: Ph.D. Specializations: Her
primary research interests include integration pedagogy. She may be
contacted at esites@liberty.edu
GARZON, FERNANDO, L. Address: Liberty University. Degree: Psy. D.
Specializations: His research interests include integration pedagogy,
spiritual interventions in psychotherapy, multicultural issues, and lay
Christian counseling. He may be contacted at fgarzon@liberty.edu
MILACCI, FRED, A. Address: Liberty University, 1971 University
Blvd., Lynchburg, VA 24502. Title: Dean of the Graduate School and
Online Programs, Associate Professor of Research, and Director of the
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) at Liberty University. Degree: Ed. D.
Specializations: Primary professional interest centers on enhancing the
teaching/learning process--particularly in Christian educational and
distance learning contexts--via the utilization of principles from the
academic discipline of adult education. He may be contacted at
fmilacci@liberty.edu
BOOTHE, BARBARA. Address: Liberty University, 1971 University
Blvd., Lynchburg, VA 24502. Title: Director of University Assessment and
an Associate Professor in the School of Education at Liberty University.
Degree: Ed. D. Specializations: Her primary professional interests
center around institutional effectiveness and assessment of learning and
core competencies. She may be contacted at bboothe@liberty.edu
Please address correspondence to Elizabeth C.Sites, Liberty
University, 1971 University Blvd., Lynchburg, VA 2450.
Email:esites@liberty.edu