Spiritual Language and the Ethics of Redemption: a Reply to Jim Mackenzie

I argue in this paper that Jim Mackenzie's critique of my recent work on religious and spiritual education fails on two main counts. First, his imputation to me of a confessional approach to religious education is simply misdirected, insofar as my previous papers are quite clearly concerned to sketch an alternative to both confessional and phenomenological approaches. Secondly, his attempt to reduce my 'spiritual truths' to moral and other claims turns on some question-begging decontextualisation of such judgements, as well as upon demonstrable ambiguities in his use of the terms 'moral' and 'soul'. In particular, I argue that the language of spirituality is indexed to an 'ethics of redemption' which is clearly distinguishable from any discourse of secular morality.     

I'll do it Tomorrow: The Logic of Procrastination

Abstract

College students seem especially adept at procrastination. Large percents report that it causes lower quality papers and projects, lower exam scores and, to a lesser extent, late or missing assignments. Using survey data collected from a broad cross-section of students and faculty we argue that procrastination can be modeled as a logical, albeit sometimes inefficient, behavior within a rational choice framework. By looking at differences in perceived costs and benefits across individuals and across circumstances we can predict who procrastinates, under what conditions they procrastinate, and how it might effectively be countered.     

Education for autonomy: a rejoinder to Aviram and Assor

Aviram and Assor try two strategies for rebutting my recent critique of autonomy as an educational aim. First, they argue that my objection to dispositional autonomy fails. Second, they identify and defend a technical sense of autonomy quite different from any that I consider. I show here that there are serious problems with both lines of argument.     

(Mis)Representing underachievement: a rejoinder to Gorard and Smith

This article provides a brief rejoinder to Gorard and Smith’s reply to an article I published in a previous issue of British Journal of Sociology of Education. In that original article I provided a critical review of their quantitative research on gender and education in the United Kingdom. In their reply to this article, Gorard and Smith seem to agree with many of the points I made. However, they appear to be particularly perplexed by why I had written this review given that they feel they have already addressed most of my points elsewhere. In this brief rejoinder I explain very clearly my motivations for writing my original article and refer readers to a more detailed and comprehensive paper where I have responded fully to each and every point raised by Gorard and Smith.     

Catholic Schools in Scotland: A rejoinder to Conroy

In a recent article in this journal James Conroy presents a spirited defence of the state funding of Catholic schools in Scotland. In so doing he repeatedly but mistakenly presents me as someone who has called for the ending of such funding. He also imputes to all opponents of Catholic schools a basic hostility to Catholicism. In this response, I clarify my position, question the accuracy of Conroy's account of Scottish responses to Catholic schools, identify a crucial difference between sociology and public polemic and then consider the propriety of the state funding of faith schools.