worldwide (Drori and Moon 2006: 164). From 1915–1935 to 1975–1995, the
share of faculty in the social sciences more than tripled in both the basic and
applied fields (Frank and Gabler 2006: 68). The gains were smallest in
psychology, where the faculty share grew only slightly. In four other fields the
gains were much larger, economics, geography, political science, and sociology,
but of these four, only sociology continued to grow after 1975 (Frank and
Gabler 2006: 138–139). It is also worth noting that some areas of the
humanities with affinities to religious studies suffered losses that were relatively
modest. History lost only about 14 percent of its faculty share, non-Western
languages and literatures only 13 percent (Frank and Gabler 2006: 105).
What do all of these figures say about the position of religion and theology
in the contemporary university? More than being marginalized, they occupy a
place of tension—probably healthy and creative tension. To the extent that they
steer toward anthropology, philosophy, and the study of antiquity, they would
seem to face dwindling interest and support. To the extent that they steer toward
sociology, geography, ‘non-Western’ studies, history, and in some parts of the
world, psychology, they rub shoulders with social sciences that have received
increasing attention or with humanities that have resisted the general decline.
Perhaps this tension, as well as disagreement over how religious the study of
religion should be, is responsible for another distinctive feature of religion and
theology. From a global perspective, universities moved over the course of the
twentieth century to structural isomorphism in most areas, but not all. The area
where structural divergence increased the most was religion and theology
(Frank and Gabler 2006: 80). As the twentieth century proceeded, universities
worldwide came increasingly to disagree about how—and whether—to
incorporate religious studies and theology.
These observations need refinement. It would be desirable to have data that
distinguished, to the extent that it is possible to do so, between religious studies
and theology. It is also important to note that studies of faculty and student
share do not address global variation in research and publication. They also
undercount activity in religious studies. That is because they concentrate upon
religious studies as a separate academic domain, located in an academic unit
of its own. This observation touches upon a second issue of institutionalization
that emerges from the chapters in this volume. Although some agreement has
emerged on where to locate the study of religion, there is no unanimity.
The authors of most of the chapters in this volume concentrated on work
within academic units devoted specifically to the study of religion. Most
pointedly, Rowena Robinson did not, and for good reason. The study of
religion in South Asia is not organized the way it is in many other regions.
(But India is not alone; consider Argentina, but also Australia, New Zealand,
and Eastern Europe, among other places.) Article 28 of the Indian Constitution
prohibits religious instruction at state-funded universities (it allows such
1111
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011
1
2
3111
4 5 6 7 8 9
20111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
42222
3
411
TOWARD A GLOBAL VISION OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES
311
