In this paper the authors review the tradition of quantitative cross-cultural research in Russia, starting with a review of the qualitative cross-cultural research tradition, both in the world in general and in Russia in particular. Afterwards, the authors discuss in more detail the origins of the Moscow School of quantitative cross-cultural research, as well as the main concrete results obtained by those belonging to it.

SUMMARY: Galina Khizrieva’s article analyzes terminological inconsistencies and methodological problems of Islamic studies through research into “the core of the Russian ummah ”, that is, into the worldview of those believers whose relationship to Islam is not mediated through national or political identity. Khizrieva argues that the methodology of Islamic studies in Russia is caught by controversial and ambivalent discourse, which opposes “good” Islam (moderate, regional, popular, scholarly, etc.) to “bad” Islam (radical, extremist, bookish, foreign, etc.). The author notes the impossibility of identifying those who confess “pure” versions of any of these types. Making scholarly discourse on Islam part of political ideologies obscures the problem even more. Khizrieva argues that the current state of research and methodology in Russian Islamic studies cannot grasp the dynamics of the development of supra-ethnic institutions in the Caucasus (in particular under Shamil) interrupted by the Russians. For Khizrieva, the Russian ummah has overcome a period of acute radicalization in the past decade, built a more tolerant system of Islamic education, and even attempted to adjust Russian law to the needs of Muslims (without infringing upon the constitutional principles of Russia). Still, Islamic studies in Russia follow the Eurocentric approach borrowed from the West and sees Islam as an ultimate Other. Khizrieva sees the solution in studying the worldview of Muslims in Russia, mostly through research into oral traditions. The author’s particular case study in this article is based upon fieldwork in Ingushetia (with materials related to vird , or spiritual orders of Sufi Islam). Khizrieva concludes that her research into oral traditions of Ingush tarikats reveals three different levels of Islamic discourse. The first (universal Islamic discourse) has to do with general issues of belief and is related to classic sources of Islam. The second level is represented by the oral tradition of tarikat and is related to stories about teachers and murids , stories about the extraordinary capacities of true Muslims, etc. Finally, the third and “pragmatic” level reflects individual positions of Muslims, and their political and social views in the quickly changing world. It is these different levels of discourse that are mixed by the indiscriminating terminology of Islamic studies.