Normal View Dyslexic View
Thematic Article
Can smaller subjects thrive when small is no longer beautiful? Reflections from Theology and Religious Studies
Abstract
In view of the current experience of UK units in Theology and Religious Studies (TRS), reflections are offered on the benefits and potential threats in an era when it is fashionable for university authorities to amalgamate smaller units in the arts and humanities. Three strategies are highlighted: exercising leadership, cultivating a distinct and coherent identity, and creating persuasive local and translocal narratives. The experience of TRS is that small does not, and need not mean ‘weak’. But clear strategies and wise tactics that fit the local context (some are suggested here) are necessary for the continuance of a subject that is of crucial national and international significance. This article is published in the thematic collection ‘On recent closures and threats of closure in the Humanities and Social Sciences’, edited by Regenia Gagnier.
Keywords
theologyreligious studiesamalgamationleadershipidentity Theology and Religious Studies (henceforth TRS) exhibits many strengths in the UK. As the latest Research Excellence Framework (REF) has demonstrated, and as QS world rankings confirm, there are exceptionally strong clusters of research excellence in this field in UK universities, while many TRS units attract far more international postgraduates than larger arts and humanities subject-areas.1 TRS draws on deep wells of history, while retaining huge contemporary reach. Given the enormous importance of religion in the Global South, it contributes greatly to the diversification and ‘decolonising’ of the undergraduate curriculum. It is currently taught across a range of universities, from the newest to the oldest, drawing in students of diverse social and ethnic backgrounds, and at a wide range of tariff-point entry.
As for many other humanities subjects, the current trends are hugely challenging, but perhaps especially so for those, like TRS, whose footprint is comparatively small.2 In REF 2021, there were only thirty-one units entered for the ‘Theology and Religious Studies’ panel, and of those eleven had nine or fewer staff FTEs.3 (However, see below on the fact that smaller units often proved themselves to be outstanding in research.) The lifting of caps on student numbers and the growth strategies of some universities have led to the expansion of some larger units, to the detriment, in some cases, of smaller ones. Both within and between institutions, the current ecology favours big over small. Three smaller TRS units have been lost in the last three years, and a larger number have been merged, amalgamated, or enfolded within larger constellations. Such conglomeration works well for some. For others, it might be the first step towards extinction.
We should welcome, of course, the widespread tendency in the humanities to explore interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary modes of collaboration. Many of the growth points in our disciplines are precisely at those places where they intersect with others, and a multidisciplinary perspective is often the most fruitful in tackling complex human problems or the multifaceted features of culture and history. Indeed, in religious studies/theology, the subject area requires an interdisciplinary approach, and in many cases has thrived through the internal, multidisciplinary diversity in any one unit of ‘theology and religious studies’. Thus, collaboration in research and teaching can be beneficial for all concerned, enriching and renewing our respective disciplines, and creating synergies that work well for everyone.
But where collaboration becomes conjunction it also carries risks, particularly for smaller subject areas if they become mere adjuncts to a larger entity. In order to cut costs (or in the name of ‘efficiency’), smaller units are increasingly being merged into larger ones; the danger is that, in the process or over time, some of them may lose their identity altogether. Several of our Departments of ‘Theology and Religion’ or ‘Religious Studies’ have recently joined with other subjects to form departments or units now called ‘Politics, Philosophy & Religion’ (Lancaster), ‘Philosophy, Religion & Ethics’ (Winchester), or ‘Classics, Ancient History, Religion & Theology’ (Exeter). Others are now programmes within a department or unit called ‘Philosophy’ (Nottingham) or ‘Philosophy & Ethics’ (Chichester). Similar trends are evidenced across the humanities, where perceived efficiencies of scale lead to the conjunction of diverse subjects within a single administrative unit.4
Let me be clear: experience shows that such conjunctions, if carefully handled, can be organised such as to preserve the identity of the constituent parts. Given the exponential increase in the administrative demands of the university, it can be a relief for a smaller unit that it is no longer required to fulfil the full gamut of administrative roles it was previously required to perform. At the same time, a new habitat can foster significant interdisciplinary cooperation to the benefit of all parties. Where a distinct undergraduate programme or suite of programmes is maintained, promoted, and developed, alongside co-taught programmes, recruitment can remain robust. Where the smaller unit concerned retains a distinct and coherent identity, the amalgamation can bring gain and comparatively little loss.
But it is also frighteningly easy for administrative incorporation to end in absorption, where the numerically smaller subject area is reduced to participation in degree programmes and modules that are only partially or tangentially related to its subject matter. Once they are absorbed, staff can more easily be dispersed, scattered to different units across the humanities and social sciences. It is then but a short step from absorption and/or dispersal to disappearance. Visionary planning, good intentions, and firm promises at the start of this process are rarely enough. Without considerable care and forward planning, the reality can turn out to be very disadvantageous for smaller subject areas.
Strategic responses
Experience suggests that there are three elements of strategy that mitigate this danger, but they need to be deployed in conjunction, each as important as the others.
The first is the exercise of leadership. As noted, multidisciplinary programmes or research projects can be immensely fruitful. But the numerically smaller units (such as Theology and/or Religion) need to use leadership to compensate for size. It would be possible to cite a number of cases where TRS colleagues have done just that, providing leadership in projects concerning politics, feminism, ethics, medical humanities, disability studies, environmental humanities, and so on. Because Theology and Religious Studies is internally so diverse in disciplinary method and focus, it naturally forms alliances with colleagues in other disciplines, but it benefits most (and not only financially) when it takes the lead in conceptualising, convening, and directing such cross-disciplinary projects. TRS has an outstanding REF track record in ‘impact case studies’, which usually involve collaborative, multidisciplinary projects. Leadership gives profile and institution-wide recognition. It also makes the subject area indispensable to the larger institution. On the whole, it aids survival and can foster growth.
But the leadership exercised by one (or even a few) individuals from a smaller subject area is not enough. It needs to be combined with a second element of strategy, the cultivation of distinct expertise. Theology and Religious Studies is perhaps the most diverse subject area in the humanities, diverse in subject matter (from atheism to Zoroastrianism, with all points along the alphabet in between) and diverse in disciplinary method. One might find in such a unit colleagues studying ancient Buddhist texts alongside others researching the contemporary phenomenon of ‘no religion’ in the UK, with others examining Christian responses to the ecological crisis, or the place of God in the philosophy of Kant. As this variety suggests, there is no single disciplinary tool in TRS: colleagues employ a vast range of disciplinary methods, from anthropology to history, from philosophy to sociology, from literary studies to psychology, and so on. That inner diversity makes for rich conversation and enables a degree in this subject to function like a ‘liberal arts’ degree in itself, producing highly versatile and intellectually well-rounded students. But it also makes it harder than in some subject areas to maintain coherence and to sustain a distinct identity, and easier for university managers to find ways to disperse colleagues from TRS across the humanities and social sciences, when they want to close a unit down.
The units that thrive are those that maintain their specific and unique expertise and that preserve a strong internal identity. In general, that takes the form of common commitment to a core, a canon, or a shared tradition of subject expertise that could not be replicated elsewhere in the institution’s eco-system. Common identity is easier to maintain if it is grounded in a socially and politically (that is, administratively) distinct entity, such as a department. It is harder to preserve if a diverse set of colleagues (diverse in interest and method) are a sub-unit within a larger entity, unbounded by any administrative distinction. Such units need to ensure that they are both intellectually coherent and un-substitutable. Their coherence could take many different forms, and may change over time, but without it (and the ability to articulate it), the centrifugal forces may become strong. And unless there is something that you and only you can offer, as a collective and coherent intellectual substance, your skills and expertise will easily be placed elsewhere by university managers looking to reconfigure (that is, downsize) the university’s offering.
Leadership in collaboration, and the cultivation of distinct, coherent expertise: such strategies make smaller units more resilient when universities are looking to shed staff. But there is a third strategic imperative, the development of a shared narrative, translocal, and local. Smallness in size can generate a narrative of decline, which is sometimes more imagined than real. That is where national and international subject associations need to generate and articulate a counter-narrative, about the vitality and significance of the subject, highlighting its successes, its growth-points, its contribution to the intellectual life of academia, and its social and political benefits. But there must be also a local narrative, fitting to the institutional context of the unit, regarding the history, politics, goals, and priorities of the university concerned. With the narrative come front-foot initiatives and forward thinking, which spot and seize potential for growth.
In TRS it is certainly not the case that small means weak. Whatever may be the case with other humanities disciplines (in some of which critical mass and sheer size may be necessary for the health of the subject), TRS can operate very effectively at a comparatively small scale. In the 2021 REF, small-to-medium-sized units showed that they could be outstanding in research—in quality, productivity, research environment, and impact. Indeed, in many cases they proved themselves far stronger than larger units. Quality and size are not in direct proportion, and it would be a mistake to regard smaller units as in need of a larger mass. In this regard, the current fad that speaks of ‘research power’ (favouring larger units) is deeply unhelpful and clearly mistaken.
Given the diversity of local contexts in which TRS operates, there is no single template for innovative action. At the undergraduate level, creating modules with wide appeal often draws in students from other disciplines who find a fascination in TRS that they had not realised or experienced before. Simultaneously, offering distinct TRS perspectives to other subject areas can broaden the exposure and increase the perceived value of the subject across the institution. Given the inner diversity of the TRS subject area and the wide range of student interests, it is often advantageous to offer multiple courses with overlapping curricula: the different titles and foci of degrees draw in students who differ widely in their reasons for taking a degree in this subject. At the same time, however, one has to work very hard on the powers-that-be to explain that having smallish numbers in some programmes is not wasteful of staff time, because the well-designed overlaps create efficiency, even if an uninformed glance at a spreadsheet of student numbers might suggest otherwise. Smallish programmes are unpopular among university managers, who cite the overhead costs (admissions, publicity, etc.) of each programme. But those costs are often exaggerated, and the benefit of a multifaceted and multi-programme offer to applicants needs to be argued effectively.
At the postgraduate level, in many contexts TRS is particularly well positioned for, and experienced in, the recruitment of postgraduate students, both national and international. The development of online masters courses is one obvious option to explore (especially with the recent change in the visa regime for masters students), and one where some units are already leading the way. Meanwhile, the financial modelling in some universities has persuaded some managers that PhD students cost more to teach than they bring in via fees. That is manifestly wrong, but this is another battle that needs to be won, since many TRS units depend financially on a substantial fee income from postgraduates.
Whatever such local tactics, they need to be part of a strategic narrative, which envisions realistic development, growth, and enrichment of the local environment. Conditions change, and narratives need to be adaptable and adapted to specific audiences, but no one can afford to be merely reactive and passive. Much will depend on the skills and capacities of local and national leadership.
The strategies here suggested—the exercise of leadership, the cultivation of a distinct identity, the development of a shared, positive narrative—can be pursued whether the unit is large or small. Multiple, smaller units are indispensable for the health of the whole subject area, creating a geographical spread, a breadth of student access, and the nurturing of diverse academic expertise that would be lost if the subject were to shrink in its academic footprint.
TRS in the university sits alongside a considerable quantity of training and research in religious traditions that takes place in the UK in non-university contexts. For instance, within the Christian tradition, there are numerous ‘theological education institutions’ of various denominations (and none), small and large, local and online, vocational and non-vocational, at various academic levels up to and including PhDs (accredited by universities). These have considerable strengths, but they tend to be focused largely on teaching (with less time dedicated to research), while their (understandable) confessional contexts and practical goals make them accessible to, and suitable for, some kinds of student, but not all. The benefit of maintaining a broad range and geographical spread of TRS units in the public, pluralist, and multidisciplinary context of the university is of immense social and political importance. At a time when religion is so widely significant but so little understood, we need citizens educated with a deep understanding of religious texts (including in their original languages), with a full appreciation of religious traditions (with their internal diversities and conflicts), and with an informed grasp of the social and cultural contexts by which religions are shaped and through which they wield considerable influence today. And to teach such informed citizens, we need a diverse body of academic experts in all such fields.
TRS in the UK needs national collaboration between subject associations, stakeholders, and funders, including the British Academy. It needs all the resource it can muster to ensure that, whether its local footprint is small or large, it fulfils the intellectually creative and socially beneficial role it has played up to now and should continue to play for the future.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Professors Nick Adams (Birmingham) and David Horrell (Exeter), who offered extremely helpful advice regarding drafts of this piece. But I take responsibility for its judgments and suggestions, which arise from conversations with numerous colleagues over several decades.
Reference
The British Academy (2019). ‘Theology and religious studies provision in UK higher education’. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publications/theology-religious-studies-provision-uk-higher-education/
1
For reasons that will become clear, I refer in this paper to ‘units’ rather than ‘departments’, since many universities are no longer organised in ‘departments’ and, even when they are, many TRS colleagues are units within a larger entity that is not solely, or even at all, labelled ‘Theology’ and/or ‘Religion/Religious Studies’.
2
Theology and Religious Studies provided the first case-study for the British Academy Observatory, whose 2019 report, while valuable in many respects, was not welcomed or accepted by all. Among other things, it proved exceptionally difficult to track subject take-up across a range of institutions (including ‘alternative providers’, which are affiliated to universities, but are not universities in their own right) and where religion was a component in degree programmes but not flagged as such in subject codes. See The British Academy (2019).
4
What this means for REF submissions and the resulting QR (quality-related research) funding will vary in different cases. In the latest REF exercise (2021) some TRS units (for example, at Glasgow University) were entered alongside cognate subjects for a non-TRS panel, while others were entered for the TRS panel in company with cognate subjects (for example, at Lancaster University). The financial implications of such decisions are not clear, not least because even an extremely high REF-ranking does not seem to count for much in the decision-making of university authorities regarding the future of such units.
Cite
DOI: 10.5871/jba/013.a04
Published on: 20 March 2025
Volume: 13
Issue: Issue 1
Article view count: 314
Article download count: 20
Copyright statement
© The author(s) 2025. This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International LicenseCite this article
Barclay, J.M.G. (2025), ‘Can smaller subjects thrive when small is no longer beautiful? Reflections from Theology and Religious Studies’, Journal of the British Academy, 13(1): a04 https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/013.a04Crossref
Dimensions
Altmetric
Article metrics
View count: 314
Download count: 20
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
Received
October 2022
Accepted
May 2023
Published
July 2023
Editorial: Governance factors on the road to net zero Tim O’Riordan, Chizitera Pennington
In 2021, the UK Government released its Net Zero Strategy, which laid out how the country would meet its legally binding carbon-based emissions target of no net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Recent developments have shown the importance of governance in the delivery of this target. These include the 2022 Committee on Climate Change progress report to Parliament and the 2023 independent review, led by Chris Skidmore MP (a former Energy Minister), which outlined that there was further work to be done at all governance levels and that all relevant stakeholder groups who will be involved in or are affected by the transition should be mobilised to ensure that the net zero target is met. The British Academy Net Zero policy programme is examining net zero from a governance perspective and commissioned a series of essays on the topic. Emerging themes from the essays and programme emphasise the important role that leaders and people will play in net zero governance.
28 September 2023
Can P/CVE be salvaged? Lessons and questions from gendered practice Rosalie Fransen
This article argues that the problem-oriented framing of the international agenda for preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) has limited the conception of gender in P/CVE and constrained the work of women-led civil society organisations. Through a meta-analysis of the cases profiled in Case Studies on the Role of Gender and Identity in Shaping Positive Alternatives to Extremisms, this article assesses the gendered interventions made by women peacebuilders and pro-peace organisations, noting their role in providing positive alternatives to extremism grounded in the framework of peace, resilience, equal rights and pluralism proposed by Sanam Naraghi Anderlini. The article argues that salvaging P/CVE practice requires recognition of the leadership of women peacebuilders and presents strategies that should inform future P/CVE practice, including the holistic integration of gender and identity, the leveraging of cultural credibility and trust, and the important role of power-building.
22 June 2023
No Data Found