Genders, sexualities and Religious Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today issues of genders and sexualities are contested, in the Global South as well as the Global North.Being inextricably interwoven with cultural practices, social attitudes, political ideologies and religious convictions, in education issues of genders and sexualities need clarification, critical examination and considered debates.Evidently, matters of genders and sexualities have strong repercussions on the perceived possibilities available for human beings' identity formation, as well as other life opportunities.The issues at stake for work, education, community and love require our serious consideration as Religious Education researchers and educators.In many socio-cultural settings in which Religious Education is offered as a school subject, human sexuality and identifications of gender have become matters of human rights too with wider implications on schooling and society.Gender, sexuality, identity, and faith are words with varied and often highly disputed meanings connected to them.This is especially more so today, when digital technologies increasingly float meanings across cultures.In the call for papers for this Special Issue, entitled Genders, Sexualities and Religious Education: Theory, Policy and Practice we deliberately chose to put the concepts 'genders' and 'sexualities' in the plural.Our intention in doing this was to give researchers freedom to address the issues in multifaceted ways.We wanted to allow for a richness of perspectives for researchers to demonstrate variations in terms of local conditions, culturally, politically, and religiously, for what can and is being done in Religious Education on these contested issues.The seven articles presented in this Special Issue do provide variation regarding theoretical perspectives, policy directions, practices, and geographical socio-cultural contexts, as well as raising several matters of principle.Some articles exemplify how governmental authorities and religious communities, respectively, can set the conditions for how genders and sexualities can, or ought to, be lived.Others offer examples of direct teaching in Religious Education through steering documents or theological argumentation.There is, however, not only an explicit curriculum underlying how matters of genders and sexualities are taught, but also often an implicit or even a null curriculum.Research can assist us in clarifying, questioning, and critiquing the various forms of curriculum, and in doing so also contribute towards positive transformation.Issues and debates raised in this Special Issue are geographically representative of various regions and socio-cultural contexts, particularly Africa, Europe North America and Eastern Asia.The articles are from Ghana, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Canada, the USA and South Korea.We will introduce each one in more detail below.A much-debated issue in many of these articles is the positioning in relation to how religion and education engage with struggles for the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons (i.e., Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual + other possible/future genders and sexualities).In this regard the contexts of such articles can be said to represent a continuum that ranges from political, social and cultural acceptance of various understandings of genders and sexualities as in Sweden and Norway, to Ghana where since 2021 heterosexuality has been mandated by law as being the only acceptable form of sexuality, and other forms of sexuality are declared unlawful.As a middle position on the continuum the two texts from Germany and Austria are examples of places in
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".