MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Religious Reflexivities among North American Muslims

2023· reference-entry· en· W4381235987 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion · 2023
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityIslamophobiaIslamSociologyGender studiesScholarshipSocial sciencePolitical scienceGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the dramatic increase of post–9/11 anti-Muslim sentiment, researchers are grappling with studying the impact of Islamophobia on Muslims within and outside Muslim-majority contexts. While diasporic Muslim public experiences have been documented extensively in extant research, the ways in which Islamophobia relates to private family life have received little attention. In addition to the lack of scholarship on diasporic Muslim family life, there is a need to better theorize engagement with Islamic beliefs and practices. Although researchers document the occurrence of Muslim “reflexivity,” or the critical engagement with religious identities, beliefs, and practices, they nevertheless unintentionally reify a uniform Muslim reflexivity. Using the diasporic Muslim household as a site of investigation, this study is the first to theorize and empirically demonstrate the social patterns of multiple forms of Muslim reflexivity. In this article, two patterns of reflexivities are highlighted that relate to different religious approaches: exclusivist and inclusivist. The analysis draws on theories of racialization and gender and utilizes a sample of Pakistani Canadian Muslims to parse differences between exclusivist and inclusivist reflexivities to explore how divergent approaches to religion coincide with contrary patterns in family life. In order to understand these divergent patterns, the concept of Muslim reflexivity is extended by incorporating religious approach. Exclusivist reflexive Muslim participants, who view only one approach as correct, are preoccupied with authority given their identification with a marginalized minority group. Thus, they perceive ethnic boundaries as bright and gender boundaries as rigid. The focus of their reflexivity is dawat, or teaching others about the “true” Islam. This contrasts with inclusivist reflexive Muslim participants, who view multiple approaches as correct. They do not perceive their minority group as being threatened and thus do not seek out authority to legitimize their identity. In turn, they perceive ethnic boundaries as blurred and maintain gender-fluid attitudes and practices. The focus of their reflexivity is akhlaq, or having polite manners and ensuring mutually satisfying intimate relations. By highlighting multiple forms of reflexivity, this article serves to remedy the ways in which researchers reify assumptions about Muslim engagement with Islam: rather than enacting reflexivity in a uniform way, diasporic Muslims engage in a plurality of reflexivities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Research Encyclopedia of ReligionSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207