This paper seeks to advance the global study of religiosity and spirituality by conducting a meta-analysis of major approaches in the field. While the field, and thus the collected publications, are dominated by Western approaches, particular attention is paid in this analysis to publications from geographies that are not from the United States or Western Europe, especially these world regions: Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Similarly, while the study of religiosity is considerably centered around Christianity, this analysis extends beyond Christianity, to the extent possible in extant studies, to include publications investigating other world religious traditions, such as African spirituality, African witchcraft, Afro-Caribbean religious traditions, Buddhism, Confucianism, folk religions, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Neo-paganism, New Religious Movements (NRMs), Shamanism, Sikhism, Spiritism, Taoism, and spirituality generally. A total of 530 publications were reviewed, and the studies are categorized by unit of analysis into: Macro, micro, and meso-level. Measurement constructs include religious demography, culture, belonging, behaving, believing, bonding, religious salience, spiritual identities, religious networks, occupations, congregations, denominations, and faith-based organizations. Non-Western sources and approaches are analyzed toward furthering future research in under-studied world regions. Implications are drawn for the field, such as the need to geo-code publications at the country level.
This paper provides a meta-analysis of the intersection of (a) religiosity and spirituality with (b) generosity, philanthropy, nonprofits, and prosociality. The study is informed by three informational sources, chronologically: (1) informational interviews with scholars and practitioners based within and studying regions outside of the U.S. and Western Europe; (2) discovery search of purposefully selected extant publications, especially focusing on the last decade of contemporary scholarship; and (3) systematic search of relevant peer-reviewed publication outlets since 2010. Reviewed publications are categorized by level of analysis into macro, meso, and micro approaches. Across each level and source, publications are also geo-tagged for their geographic scope. Particular attention is paid to the under-studied world regions of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The results reveal that Asia is the most studied and Latin America the least studied, and that meso-level approaches are the most common while micro-level are the least common. Additionally, a map of publication counts reveals within-region inequalities by country. Implications of the analysis are drawn for future studies, particularly ways to advance this interdisciplinary field.
Wanting to get married is, from one feminist perspective, like enjoying a piece of porn: intellectually, you can deride both as patriarchal, (hetero)sexist and a moment of collusion in your own oppression; yet a recalcitrant part of you is still turned on . . . Or so it seems to us as we grapple with the practical, personal and ideological dilemmas facing a feminist couple contemplating marriage; we still seem to be in knots . . . We have been to three white weddings this summer. The first was a formal Christian affair with a lively social club reception, the second a (largely) nonreligious service in a Welsh manor house surrounded by fields. The third, held in a chapel in the New Forest, entailed an adapted Christian ceremony and a lavish reception complete with piano accompaniment. At each wedding, the presumed inevitability of heterosexual marriage was apparent in the repeated banter about when it would be 'our turn'. Despite protestations that we 'did not believe in marriage', we found ourselves enjoying each occasion; as David Wilson (1996) quipped: 'Given that [we] were attending the chief ceremony of patriarchal oppression, everybody seemed to be bearing up remarkably bravely ' (p. 196). However, amidst the free food, dancing and imagining what it would be like if we were the principle players, each ceremony also sparked a new twist in our long-standing debate on the (im)possibility of feminist heterosexual marriage. A typical strand of our debate runs something like this:MT: [In low hiss, watching bride as her hand is passed symbolically by vicar from father to fiancé] And now we transfer this piece of property from one man to another.
In October of 1978, a committee met to explore the possibility of a merger between the National Council on Philanthropy (NCOP) and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations (CONVO). The vision was more than the mere marriage of two small organizations facing uncertain futures. Participants in this endeavor dreamed of an entity that would represent the entire nonprofit sector. The organization they birthed in 1979, Independent Sector (IS), was a meaningful step forward in unifying the sector. The IS board represented a broad range of sub-sectors and causes and also made strides in gender and, to a lesser extent, racial and religious diversity. Yet, there was an inherent tension in the project. Yes, it was true that people did not want to “interfere with pluralism” but they also wanted “a strong voice” to champion the sector—those involved called this dilemma a “persistent contradiction.” The tension was resolved in favor of the concerns of the powerful national non-profit institutions and foundations: tax policy, government relations, and sector advocacy. That is, the umbrella organization acted principally to preserve the sector, as constituted, and had little appetite for structural reform or discussion of competing notions of “the good” within the sector. Critics pointed to the exclusion of local organizations fighting issues that challenged societal injustice and inequitable distribution of power and resources. To them, and in retrospect to the authors of this paper, greater sector “unity” entailed consolidation of traditional power and continued marginalization of communities already on the periphery. Though four decades have passed, the same tension remains in the philanthropic sector. Contest and division between various interests and constituencies is as evident now as it was then. Enthusiastic support for the advancement of public goods often over-shadows issues of power—including the ability to impose one’s own definition of the public good on others. This critique has been leveled forcefully in recent years. Is it possible or even desirable to seek greater unity for the public good? Whose voices are privileged in the quest for greater sectoral unity? These are the questions this paper aspires to provoke and inform by examining the founding of the first major nonprofit sector association in the United States.
Background and Purpose The endovascular clip system (eCLIPs) is a novel device with both neck bridging and flow diversion properties that make it suitable for the treatment of wide-necked bifurcation aneurysms. We aim to describe the clinical and radiologic outcomes of the eCLIPs device, including the first-in-man use of the latest version of the device. Materials and Methods This is a retrospective case series on all the wide-necked bifurcation aneurysms treated with the eCLIPs device in our center. The immediate and latest radiologic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Results The device was successfully implanted in 12 out of 13 patients. After a median follow-up period of 19 months (Range: 3 months-64 months), all patients with available data (11/12) had a good radiologic outcome (Modified Raymond-Roy Classification scores of 1 or 2). Two patients (18.1%) underwent retreatment with simple coiling through the device. One of these had a subarachnoid hemorrhage prior to retreatment. There were no major complications (death or permanent neurologic deficits) associated with the use of the device.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.