134 Patricia M. Y. Chang
has often taken this approach, focusing selectively on the kinds of data that can best
test particular hypotheses and truncating observations that do not fit (Lieberson 1985).
The literature review above has suggested that when the facts have not fit the theory,
scholars often have shifted their focus to a new set of issues. At risk of shifting the lens
once again, I offer the following suggestions that attempt to guide the field in a new
direction.
Proposition 1:Religion scholars need to distinguish between organizational studies
that focus on a single organization and those that consider the organization as a prod-
uct of broader environmental processes. Historically, the tendency has been to focus
on the dynamics of one or two organizations and to generalize from this to the whole.
This needs to be corrected by studies that look at a larger sample of organizations, and
also take a more considered look at what can be called the religious sector, that is, the
patterns of institutional relationships that affect religious membership organizations
but may also include religious colleges, voluntary associations, paradenominational
associations, charities, and so on. While there is ample room for the study of organiza-
tions at both the organizational unit of analysis and the sectoral level of analysis, the
more important concern is for researchers in both camps to maintain an intellectual
dialogue with one another.
Proposition 2:Our empirical definition of the religious sector should depend on our
theoretical focus. For the study of denominational membership, for example, we may
wish to define the religious sector as the population of denominations that compete for
members. For a study of how religion affects political behavior, however, we may wish to
define the religious sector as including local congregations, denominations, ecumenical
groups, religious interest groups, and ideological interest groups participating within
the political process. The religious sector is potentially vast, and definitions of the
sector as a causal agent must rely on the theoretical conception of causal processes.
At the same time, theoretical formulation requires more focused information about
the kinds of networks and relationships that religious organizations build around their
organizational goals. Some of this empirical work is already being pursued by researchers
and the picture that emerges of religious organizations and their institutional partners
will begin to provide valuable insights into how religious congregations engage their
local communities while pursuing their mission.
Proposition 3:Religion scholars must think of the religious sector not as a separate part
of American society but as a set of institutional actors that is influenced by, and interacts
with, the other major social institutions in American society. Religious movements
have played a role in all the major social reform movements of the past two centuries,
and have provided models for our most enduring civil institutions including our civil
government, poor relief, education, and our attitudes toward a collective morality.
Sociologists need to reclaim this territory both in their intellectual studies, and in their
approach to current social problems and issues.
Proposition 4:Following from the critique of neoinstitutional theory, we need to un-
derstand how institutionalizing processes guide organizational behavior in the religious
sector, how these processes differ from other institutional sectors, and what this means.